Cost effective ways to leave no-one behind in rural water and sanitation – Summary on the RWSN E-discussion

The e-discussion on the topic of “Cost effective ways to leave no-one behind in rural water and sanitation” has come to an end and we are very grateful for the 40+ participants who actively took part. A summary of the e-discussion can be found here. Additionaly, we as moderators want to share our own summary of the discussion in this short blog.

Authors: Julia Boulenouar, Louisa Gosling, Guy Hutton, Sandra Fürst, Meleesa Naughton.

As duty bearers for the realisation of human rights to safe drinking water, States have the responsibility to ensure that no-one is left behind. And the SDG framework clearly sets out the need for all stakeholders to work together on the challenge. This e-discussion was an opportunity for diverse members of the Rural Water Supply Network to share lessons and views on how this can be done.

Reminding ourselves of the challenge at stake: since the SDG WASH targets 6.1 and 6.2 were adopted in 2015, the sector has been thinking hard about how to finance the ambitious goal of providing access to safely managed WASH services for everyone, everywhere and forever. This ambition is even more challenging in rural areas, where coverage levels are lower and the unserved include remote communities which are harder to reach and often poorer.

In order to develop a credible financial strategy to achieve this ambition and leverage resources, governments and sector stakeholders need to determine the real costs involved (not only to provide first time access for a few, but sustainable services for all) and the sources of funding that are available and can be mobilised. It needs credible data on those aspects as well as on the population served and unserved, including the most vulnerable groups.

What we already know about the cost of providing WASH services: the costs of providing services rely on many factors and the WASH Cost initiative led by IRC has helped to identify 6 categories beyond capital expenditure to include among others, operation and maintenance, capital maintenance expenditure and direct support. We know that some of these cost categories are largely unknown and as a result, not planned, not budgeted and not financed. This is the case for capital maintenance expenditure and for direct support costs (generally referring to costs for local government to support service providers).

In terms of actual costs, a World Bank study of 2016 showed that $114 billion per year would be needed globally to cover capital costs and roughly the same for operation and maintenance.

What we know less about is the real cost of providing services to all, especially for those left behind (including those marginalised and those discriminated against) and this is because limited data are available. We also recognise that beyond the 6 generic cost categories, many costs are unknown and neglected and these include:

the non-financial time costs of WASH access,
the cost of taking time to properly understand demand, recognising gender differences and diverse perspectives,
the cost of strengthening skills and stakeholder capacity to fulfil their mandate, particularly service authorities and service providers,
the cost of corruption,
the time and cost of including people with disabilities and others who are socially excluded in services.

These can be seen as cost drivers rather than additional categories, but should be thought through, every time services are planned for.

Who is currently financing this goal and who should do more? Leaving no one behind is the responsibility of national governments. They need to mobilise funding through a combination of sources, including government (taxes), development partners (transfers) and users (tariffs). This is usually known as the “3Ts”. In some contexts, the private sector may have a role to play in investing in water services. However, results from countries that conducted to identify and track WASH financing with the UN-Water tool TrackFin, show that the main contributors for the sector are by far the users who are paying for their own services through capital investment (Self-supply) and through water tariffs (operation and maintenance). In that context, should we consider revising the “3Ts” to “3Ts and S” to acknowledge the importance of Self-supply in the mix of services? And should we also add a 4^th T for time to recognise the extent of unpaid labour, especially that of women, on which rural water supply depends? And should we recognise the time used to travel to a place of open defecation or also the waiting time for shared sanitation?

In any case, given the magnitude of the challenge, governments should mobilise additional funding for the WASH sector and coordinate efforts at all levels to ensure cost-effectiveness and efficiency, particularly in resource-constrained environments. Developing WASH plans at sub-national level could be a good way to strengthening governance and coordination, and maximise cost-effectiveness.

What about serving those that cannot afford to pay? Those currently left behind include communities located in rural and remote areas who are often the poorest and currently rely on Self-supply. For those who cannot afford to pay and to address the issue of leaving no-one behind, various areas can be investigated:

Defining and measuring users’ affordability
Considering low-cost technology options such as Self-supply but only if accompanied by long-term support from local and national government (including through regulation)
Making sure the solutions are acceptable and accessible for all – taking into account gender, disability, and cultural preferences

This e-discussion has been useful at clarifying knowns and unknowns related to costing and financing services. Even though the issue of affordability has been touched on, many questions remain unanswered.

We think this discussion should continue and here are a few questions, which we still have in mind, but you might have many more:

Who are populations left behind in different contexts (including the marginalised and discriminated against) and how can we define and identify them?
What are the ongoing costs of reaching everyone (including the aspects listed above)?
If users are those paying the majority of WASH supply costs, how do we deal with those who cannot afford to pay?
What mechanisms can be introduced to set tariffs appropriately, whilst also covering the costs of long-term service provision?
What are the examples of supported Self-supply that have been successful?
What are the specific roles of local government in ensuring no-one is left behind?

Continue the discussion with us and post your answers below or sent your contribution to the RWSN e-discussion group.

Photo credits (top to bottom): Dominic Chavez/World Bank; Alan Piazza / World Bank; Arne Hoel / World Bank; Gerardo Pesantez / World Bank

Scotland’s place in achieving water for society – including all

This is a guest blog by Ben McIntosh-Michaelis, a RWSN Young Professional who submitted this entry as part of the RWSN@WWW competition. For more information on RWSN’s support to Young Professionals, please see here.

Living in Scotland we often think that everyone here has access to safe water. In reality, this is not quite the case. Despite not being perfect, we are still good at managing our water. Because of this, Scotland is heavily involved in Water, Sanitation And Hygiene (WASH) projects worldwide.

In Scotland’s cities and towns, naturally occurring water sources cannot meet demand. In order to maintain a supply of water for society, which is of sufficient quantity and of good quality, common civil infrastructure is key. By and large, Scotland has a well-developed infrastructure for supplying and removing water. Therefore, water for society is a reality, at least in the urban areas.

Many water supplies in Scotland are managed by a national body, Scottish Water. This goes a long way in ensuring that everyone is included when water is supplied for society. However, rural water supplies in Scotland are not managed by the national body, meaning that ca. 500,000 people on private water supplies (using boreholes or stream water for instance) are not covered by the same infrastructure and quality controls. As the research from the Citizen’s Advice Bureau Scotland suggests, this situation means that safe water for all isn’t a reality even here in Scotland.

Huge variations in geology and landscape in Scotland means that the water quality varies from location to location. The result is that these small and individual sources require a bespoke set of technical steps to clean the water. But as you can appreciate, this is extremely costly and often not a realistic approach.

Development of a standard system which can be used to treat water from sources with significant variations in flowrate requirements and water quality is challenging. Many of the standard, tried and tested technologies used to treat these sources require a lot of electricity, high levels of maintenance, and replacement of parts. This is expensive to manage, and it also places people living in rural areas at risk of being supplied with untreated water if a piece of equipment stops functioning. This section of society may become excluded from the quality water supply for society.

Better mechanisms for implementing new systems and technologies in areas where traditional systems can be unreliable and expensive are needed in Scotland. This is in terms of policies held by those responsible for infrastructure obtainment and providing independent analysis about which products will be suitable. As stated by the Citizen’s Advice Bureau Scotland, “more needs to be done to improve the quality of information available to consumers, and signposting needs to be improved to ensure those that need it can access it.”

From a global perspective, water for society – including all, means that the impacts of climate change and economic practices should be considered when discussing Scotland’s place in society. Steps are being taken by the Scottish Government to include these considerations, many of which relate directly to water (information can be found on the Scottish Government’s website).

As well as Scottish Government involvement, Scottish society engages in international development; from school groups, to charities, universities, student groups and businesses, there are a wide range of projects and affiliations. Many of these projects relate to or involve water. During my own engagement as a student and as a professional engineer working in Southern Africa, I have observed that many of these activities are unregulated and are based on random connections between people in Scotland and around the world. On the one hand, this is great because there are so many ways in which people in Scotland can get involved. On the other hand, many of the projects are untargeted, and do not focus on the needs of the people they are supposed to be helping. The lack of coordination means that there is a lot of replication of projects, sometimes a lack of qualified experts on board, and a lack of a best practice principle.

For Scottish society to engage healthily in international development, including the WASH field, greater coordination and regulation of projects is required. Young people in particular need to be made more aware of the issues surrounding voluntourism in order to curb the harm caused by this practice.

The importance of being properly qualified to do a job must be highlighted, to everyone. My work in the rural water sectors in Scotland and in Southern Africa suggests to me that a cultural shift is required. Just because a water infrastructure project is in a rural area – whether in Scotland or Southern Africa – doesn’t mean it can be hastily implemented or without the necessary technical input. Water for all of society must include those living in even the most remote areas, and the infrastructure, expertise and business models need to be adapted to help meet the needs of these communities to ensure no one is left behind.

More resources

If you are interested in finding out more about rural water supplies in Scotland, and the comparison with other countries (specifically Eastern Europe / Ethiopia), please see this RWSN webinar from 2018, or check out this presentation.

About the author

Ben won the Vision in Business for the Environment of Scotland (VIBES) Hydro Nation Challenge in 2016 for the design of the Afridev Hi-Lift (a handpump retrofit adaptation unit that allows water to be lifted to a head). Later, upon completion of his engineering Masters, he started work for the Climate Justice Fund Water Futures Program (CJF WFP) based at the University of Strathclyde, gaining experience working in Malawi’s Southern region alongside BASEflow, a local Malawian organisation. He currently works for Clean Water Wave, an Edinburgh based Community Interest Company which is developing the low energy, no chemical Clean Aqua For Everyone (CAFE) water treatment system.

Make the last mile the first mile: is business the key to fulfilling human rights?

This guest blog was written by Selma Hilgersom (Simavi). The original blog post is available here and is re-published with permission and thanks from Simavi.

Last week, I attended the AGUASAN workshop. This yearly event is organised by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and joined by a broad variety of WASH practitioners. The key focus of this year’s workshop were ‘service providers that take an inclusive business approach and drive the advancement of the human right to water and sanitation’. Within the conference, six cases of young and inspiring entrepreneurs were put forward during the week and participants teamed up to dive into the business cases and assess the human rights angle of making a business out of WASH.

If anything, the week has given me a serious mind exercise on the role of the private sector in development. I have a background in the field of water technology and supporting the development of innovative business propositions. I do believe that the private sector is key in addressing global challenges. Business comes with internal drivers to guarantee the delivery of products and services that meet the demands of costumers, as entrepreneurs depend on the success of their business to generate an income. This drives efficiency, cost-efficiency and the continuous exploring smarter ways of working.

So, if business has the potential to provide everyone in the world with well-functioning WASH infrastructure, why are we not collectively entrepreneuring into the most rural areas of this world and ensuring that the human right to water and sanitation is fulfilled? And why are NGOs still funded to do a job that business can do while making money out of it?

Let’s first set the perspective straight. I work for an NGO. I am not afraid to re-consider my role in a fast-changing world. I do believe business has an key role to play in accelerating development and strengthening (business) ecosystems in-country. Especially local entrepreneurship and equal North-South partnerships can go a long way in providing people with the basic services that they need. Especially the businesses that pro-actively include women and girls and effectively respond to the needs of all members of a given community, regardless of who they are and their circumstances, seem to have the exact same goal as many NGOs. And stepping away from the ‘beneficiary perspective’ and including people as ‘costumers’ creates a different perspective. Two sidenotes: let’s try to avoid the discussion whether capitalism is the system that ensures everlasting happiness here and at the same time acknowledge that disadvantaged people benefit from a system in which they are participating as more than just ‘costumers’ that are defined by their purchasing power.

The nature of business is to ensure that there is a profit made. And from my experience in start-ups, this is a challenge when starting-up a business. The question that comes to my mind is then how feasible it is to design a self-sustaining business model targeting consumers with the least purchasing power, especially in the beginning. And whether it is possible to focus on the lower-bottom of the pyramid; even if this comes with challenges. A few examples: geography (what if a village is located at a remote mountain), reaching relatively few costumers per community, having to invest a lot in demand-creation before WASH services and products are bought. Are there smart models that make this ‘work’? Or stable financing mechanisms that can blend different revenue streams to cover the high need with the limited profitability? And how do you create a business ecosystem with local entrepreneurs to serve the people who currently lack access to WASH? What is the role and contribution of the government?
There is a broader development perspective to this too. Including ‘impact indicators’ in doing business, which reflect the aim of development work, does require extra efforts that may conflict with business interests. But results in lasting positive change in communities. Think of delivering water in a community where people are at high risk of a specific disease; is this just solved by delivering water? Or does this require the provision of additional health information and working towards improved service delivery? Or in the case that women are not allowed to decide over their own bodies, does the delivery of WASH provide an answer to the broader challenges that exist in the community?

Even if we would imagine an all-inclusive model of the private sector that perfectly responds to the needs of people, there is still one discussion that was put forward more than once during AGUASAN: (government) systems are the enablers of the success and upscaling of any business. The central question is therefore how business models fit in existing local, national and global systems? This links into the very basis of acknowledging that people have rights, and that they should be able to claim them, wherever in the world that may be.
And this is not ‘just a remark’ – it links into the issue of rightly anchoring the responsibility where it belongs: who is (or should) take the responsibility for fulfilling the human right to water and sanitation, and what is the place of the private sector therein? What to do if there is no profitable business case for providing WASH? Maybe the consideration is whether the ideal business model, if it would exist, would silence this discussion: does access to WASH equal that human rights are fulfilled? Even if this is done independently from the government, and in a profitable way? And if so, is it possible (capacity wise) to reach the 2.1 billion people (!) that still do not have safe and sustainable water delivery? Should the private sector be made responsible for fulfilling the human right to water and sanitation, if governments fail to do this?

I am not afraid of profit. I believe that businesses and NGOs both play a vital role in development. I believe in systems that are driven by (young) entrepreneurs and create a broad-range of value to consumers and are self-sustaining. There are many examples in the world where the private sectors makes a huge difference in the lives of disadvantaged people. I refer to the two amazing female entrepreneurs of Pad2Go who want to break the barriers women face in Nepal due to their menstruation (and with whom I had the honour to work with during the week). I am incredibly happy that many entrepreneurs are positive towards cooperation with NGOs. However, I also believe that this comes with a joint dream and a joint responsibility.

Often, the cooperation between NGOs and the private sector is defined by the roles ‘taking care of the business’ and ‘taking care of development’. I advocate for a more integrated business case, where investing in business and investing in development are one and the same thing. Could we agree that the success on the broader impact indicators is equally important as the development of a sustainable business model? And not from a ‘charity perspective’, but from the believe that this will increase the integrated value proposition of businesses. And thereby open up new markets and potential (impact) costumers. And a call to NGOs – can we move beyond the output, outcome and impact indicators, and join hands with those who will remain long after the funding of our NGO programmes has run out? And create built-in incentives to be as successful as we can? And not be guided by pre-set targets?

One of the things that stayed in my mind after AGUASAN is the presentation of human rights superstar Ms. Catarina de Albuquerque, who challenged us to “make the last mile the first mile”. Let’s do that. Together.

Edit from the author: I had some discussions about the extent of ‘pushing (Western) values upon local communities’, and whether businesses or even NGOs should be involved in this at all – or that we should limit ourselves to basic product or service delivery. I can write another blog on my thoughts on this. As this blog has a slightly different focus, I refer to Simavi’s aim to ensure that disadvantaged people in low and middle income countries are enabled to practice healthy behaviour based on their own free and informed decisions and free from coercion and violence. By doing this through supporting civil society to claim its rights with and through local organisations, development is no more than amplifying positive changes that start locally.

About the author

Selma holds a master degree in ‘Human Geography’ and ‘Policy and Organisation’ with a specialisation in transnational advocacy and business and innovation. She has worked in international organisations to promote and support the development of new business models, sustainable innovations and the uptake of new water technologies. Currently, she coordinates programs of Simavi in Tanzania and Nepal that aim to ensure that disadvantaged people, and especially women and girls, can live healthy lives

Ne laisser personne de côté dans les zones rurales, c’est plus qu’une question d’approvisionnement en eau potable.

“Ne laisser personne de côté”. Que signifient réellement ces mots et quelles en sont les implications pour nous, les professionnels de l’eau en milieu rural, ainsi que pour le financement des programmes et des projets que nous mettons en œuvre ?

Le mot de la présidente du RWSN: Kelly Ann Naylor, UNICEF, Co-auteur : Dr Kerstin Danert, responsable du Thème Développement Durable des Eaux Souterraines de RWSN

Le thème de la Journée mondiale de l’eau de 2019, du World Water Development Report des Nations Unies, de la Semaine mondiale de l’eau à Stockholm et de la série de webinaires RWSN du printemps 2019 était le même : “Ne laisser personne de côté”. Que signifient réellement ces mots et quelles en sont les implications pour nous, les professionnels de l’eau en milieu rural, ainsi que pour le financement des programmes et des projets que nous mettons en œuvre ?

La résolution 70/1 de l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies intitulée “Transformer notre monde : l’Agenda 2030 pour le développement durable” stipule qu’il ne faut laisser personne de côté. Cela nous demande d’analyser qui a été exclu de la prestation de services, de la prise de décision et du développement ; de découvrir pourquoi ; de déterminer ce qui peut être fait et de prendre des mesures pour que les personnes marginalisées dans le passé soient incluses maintenant et à l’avenir. Deuxièmement, il s’agit de travailler de manière transversale entre disciplines et “thèmes de développement” pour combler les lacunes.

Permettez-moi d’illustrer le premier point par un exemple fictif : “Le pays X a connu une croissance économique rapide au cours des deux dernières décennies, qui s’est traduite par une amélioration substantielle de la richesse et du niveau de vie des populations dans trois des cinq régions du pays. Entre-temps, la vie de la majorité des habitants des deux autres régions, essentiellement rurales, n’a guère changé en cinquante ans. Une proportion non négligeable de la population y vit toujours dans l’extrême pauvreté et n’a pas de sécurité. L’écart de richesse entre les différentes régions du pays s’est creusé et, pour aggraver la situation, les populations les plus pauvres des régions les plus pauvres ont peu de voix ou d’influence dans la prise de décision au niveau national. L’objectif de Ne laisser personne de côté exige de demander au gouvernement et aux partenaires, ainsi qu’aux bailleurs de fonds, de comprendre pourquoi ces deux régions sont restées marginalisées, d’explorer ce qui peut être fait pour remédier au déséquilibre et de prendre des mesures. S’attaquer aux inégalités spatiales (géographiques) comme le montre l’exemple ci-dessus n’est qu’un exemple parmi d’autres des mesures prises pour ne laisser personne de côté. Selon le contexte, les inégalités se manifestent dans de nombreuses dimensions, y compris, mais sans s’y limiter, le sexe, la capacité, l’âge, l’origine ethnique, les castes et l’éloignement. Il peut également y avoir des chevauchements entre ces dimensions.

Le deuxième point, qui porte sur le fait de travailler de manière transversale entre plusieurs thèmes de développement, est bien illustré dans les objectifs de développement durable (ODD) qui sont interdépendants. Les professionnels de l’eau, de l’assainissement et de l’hygiène (WASH) peuvent se concentrer sur l’ODD 6 – Eau potable et assainissement, mais l’eau potable est directement intégrée dans l’ODD 1 – Mettre fin à la pauvreté (services de base), l’ODD 5 – Egalité des sexes (temps consacré au travail domestique non rémunéré, et femmes occupant des postes de direction) et l’ODD 4 – Éducation de qualité (Eau, Assainissement et Hygiène (EAH) dans les écoles). Tous ces éléments sont tout aussi importants que l’ODD 6.

Ce point est également ressorti d’une évaluation récente du programme d’approvisionnement en eau potable en milieu rural d’UNICEF: si nous voulons nous assurer que personne n’est laissé de côté et nous attaquer fondamentalement à la pauvreté rurale, nous devons, en tant que professionnels de l’eau en milieu rural, envisager de dépasser les limites de l’eau potable et du “monde de l’EAH”. Pour transformer la vie des populations, les infrastructures de l’eau doivent répondre à un plus large éventail de besoins ruraux – approvisionnement domestique, jardins familiaux, entreprises rurales et transformation rurale ainsi que l’eau potable. Nous devons aborder les questions de genre afin que les femmes et les enfants ne “fassent pas le travail d’un tuyau ” car ils passent une grande partie de leur vie à transporter de l’eau sur de longues distances. Nous devons veiller à ce que les personnes handicapées puissent satisfaire leurs besoins en eau et mener une vie digne.

D’ici la fin de l’année, l’UNICEF publiera de nouvelles directives sur l’équité dans le secteur de l’EAH. Nous espérons que cela contribuera non seulement aux efforts que vous entreprenez déjà, mais que ces directives pourront vous inspirer à faire encore plus pour remédier aux inégalités. Entre-temps, commencez à poser des questions sur les personnes qui sont laissées pour compte, ainsi que sur ce qui peut être fait et pourquoi. De plus, songez à contacter vos collègues et amis qui travaillent pour transformer le monde rural, ou sur les questions de genre, la nutrition et l’éducation pour voir s’il existe des moyens de travailler ensemble pour ne laisser personne de côté en milieu rural.

Leaving no one behind in rural areas is about more than drinking water supplies

‘Leaving No One Behind’ – what do these words actually mean, and what are the implications for us rural water practitioners, as well as those funding the programmes and projects that we implement?

Word from the RWSN Chair: Kelly Ann Naylor UNICEF, Co-author: Dr Kerstin Danert, RWSN Sustainable Groundwater Development Theme Leader in the latest RWSN Update (June 2019)

The theme of the 2019 World Water Day, the United Nations World Water Development Report the World Water Week in Stockholm and the early 2019 RWSN webinar series was ‘Leaving No One Behind’. What do these words actually mean, and what are the implications for us rural water practitioners, as well as those funding the programmes and projects that we implement?

‘Leave No One Behind’ is stated in the UN General Assembly Resolution 70/1 entitled: Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Leave no one behind calls upon us to find out who has been excluded from service provision, decision-making and development; to find out why; to explore what can be done and to take action to ensure that people who have been marginalised in the past are included now, and in the future. Secondly, it is about joining hands across disciplines and ‘development themes’ to address gaps.

Let me try to illustrate the first point with a fictitious example: “Country X has witnessed rapid economic growth over the last two decades, leading to substantial improvements in the wealth and living standards of people in three of the country’s five regions. Meanwhile, the lives of the majority of people in the other two, predominantly rural regions have barely changed over fifty years. A sizable proportion of the population there are still living in extreme poverty and have no safety net. The gap in wealth between different parts of the country has widened, and, to make matters worse, the poorest people in the poorest regions have little voice, or influence in decision-making at national level. Leave no one behind calls upon government and partners, as well as funders to understand why these two regions have remained marginalised, to explore what can be done to address the imbalance, and to take action. Addressing spatial (geographical) inequalities as shown in the above example is just one example of taking action to leave no one behind. Depending on the context, inequalities manifest themselves in many dimensions, including, but not limited to gender, ability, age, ethnicity, cast and remoteness. There may also be overlaps.

The second point, about joining hands and working across development themes is well illustrated in the interlinked Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) practitioners may focus on SDG 6 – Clean Water and Sanitation, but drinking water is directly embedded within SDG 1 – No Poverty (basic services), SDG 5 – Gender Equality (time spent on unpaid domestic and care work and women in managerial positions) and SDG 4 – Quality Education (WASH in schools). These are all just as important as SDG 6.

This point was also highlighted in a recent evaluation of the Rural Water Supply programme of UNICEF: if we are to ensure that no one is left behind and fundamentally tackle rural poverty, we, as rural water practitioners need to consider move beyond the confines of drinking water and ‘the WASH world’. To transform people’s lives, water infrastructures need to cater for a wider spectrum of rural needs – domestic supply, household gardens, rural businesses and rural transformation as well as drinking water. We must address gender issues so that women and children no longer ‘do the work of a pipe’ as they spend large parts of their lives hauling water over long distances. We must ensure that people with disabilities are able to meet their water needs and lead dignified lives.

By the end of 2019, UNICEF will publish new guidance on equity in WASH. We hope that this will not only contribute to the efforts that you are already undertaking, but that it can inspire you to do even more to address inequalities. In the meantime, start asking questions about who is being left behind, as well as why and what can be done. Moreover, consider reaching out to colleagues and friends working on rural transformation, gender transformation, nutrition and education to see if there are ways that you can work together to leave no one behind in rural areas.

New JMP report offers fresh insights into rural water progress and challenges

The new JMP report is out with WASH data up to 2017! This is an initial look at some key points relating to rural water supply

The WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) is one of the central data and analysis resources for the WASH sector and each new report and data update is generally grabbed eagerly by WASH data geeks, like me.

This being RWSN, I’m specifically interested in rural water supply and what I present below is a hasty digest of some key facts and figures in the latest 2019 JMP report specifically relating to rural drinking water access.

I’m sure other WASH bloggers will also add the analysis, but I found the stuff on inequalities very interesting and useful. Some things that jumped out at me include:

What can we learn from Paraguay, Morocco and other countries that have made good progress?
Rural water supply challenges are not just about Sub-Saharan Africa: Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Fiji, Jamaica, Nicaragua and others are going backwards; and in terms of absolute numbers of people, China, India, Indonesia and Pakistan still have millions of rural people
Lower wealth quintiles often get left behind, but not always.
The new 3 elements of “Safely Managed” water are interesting and highlight an urgent need for systematic water quality monitoring – which a new RWSN Topic this year, as part of the Mapping & Monitoring Theme, thanks to our friends at the University of North Carolina.

Global Headline Facts & Figures

Here are some nuggets that will doubtless be seen in powerpoint presentations, funding proposals and journal papers over the coming year:

“2000-2017: Rural coverage of safely managed services increased from 39% to 53%. The gap between urban and rural areas decreased from 47 to 32 percentage points.”
“In 2017: 5.3 billion people used safely managed services. An additional 1.4 billion used at least basic services. 206 million people used limited services, 435 million used unimproved sources, and 144 million still used surface water.”
“46 out of 132 countries are on track to achieve ‘nearly universal’ basic water services by 2030, but rural areas and the poorest wealth quintiles have furthest to go”
“The greatest increase was recorded in Sub-Saharan Africa, where a quarter of the current population has gained access to at least basic drinking water since 2000”
“In 2017: Eight out of ten people still lacking even basic services lived in rural areas. Nearly half lived in Least Developed Countries“
“207 million people still used sources where water collection exceeded 30 minutes. Two thirds (135 million) of these people lived in countries in Sub-Saharan Africa but six out of eight SDG regions contained at least one country where >10% of the population used limited water services in 2017. The burden of water collection falls disproportionately on women.”

The report also reminds us that WASH is not just about SDG6, there are direct and indirect references in:

SDG 1.4 (No Poverty) its indicator 1.4.1 “Proportion of population living in households with access to basic services (including access to basic drinking water, basic sanitation and basic handwashing facilities)”
SDG 4.a (Education) and its indicator: 4.a.1 Proportion of schools with access to… (e) basic drinking water, (f) single-sex basic sanitation facilities, and (g) basic handwashing facilities
SDG 3.8 (Health) and its indicator on proportion of health care facilities with basic WASH services.

Since the emergence of SDG6.1 there has been a question about what “Safely Managed” water means. Well now there is some data available of the three elements chosen by the JMP team:

“Accessible on premises”
“Available when needed”
“Free from contamination”

However, there is only data for 14 countries for all three of these, but from those: “Between 2000 and 2017, water quality in rural areas improved from 42% to 53% free from contamination”

Regional/Country Progress and inequalities

Without doubt, the rural water supply star country is Paraguay: “Paraguay increased rural coverage of basic water from 53% to 99% and reduced the gap between richest and poorest by over 40 percentage points.”

Elsewhere:

“In almost all countries, service levels are higher in urban areas than in rural areas, but different patterns of inequality are observed.”
“In Latin America and the Caribbean, 12% of the rural population lacked basic water services in 2017, compared to 29% in 2000”
“In Haiti rural basic water coverage has increased among the richest but decreased among the poorest thereby widening the gap between them”
“In Nicaragua, rural basic water coverage has decreased among both groups.”

Country progress to achieving Basic Rural Water Coverage by 2030 (figure above):

16 countries on track, including: Morocco, Tajikistan, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Azerbaijan, Iraq, El Salvador, Kazakhstan, India, Vietnam, Tunisia, Brazil, Lithuania, Suriname, Panama. The most progress is being made by Morocco (+2.5%/year)
61 countries are making progress, but too slowly. The best progress is being made by Afghanistan and Mozambique (+2.1%/year)
17 countries are going backwards, including: Iran, Fiji, Malaysia, North Korea, Serbia, Jamaica, Comoros, Gambia, Lesotho, Nicaragua, Guinea, Zimbabwe, Djibouti, Burkina Faso, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Solomon Island. The biggest declines have been in Burkina Faso, Comoros and the Solomon Islands (-0.9%/year).

Which countries have the biggest rural water supply challenges?

The JMP data can examine this question in different ways – and a few new ones too. This is a quick-and-dirty dive into the data to look at which countries are struggling and should be given priority:

A column on water quality/contamination criteria is not included because the aggregated data for rural water is not available – and in many cases probably doesn’t exist.

These are just a few highlights, please take the time to read the report and explore the data portal.

An Empowering Drop in the Bucket – A women’s journey on International Women’s Day

Author: Sara Ahrari, Programme Manager at Simavi.

March marks two significant internationally celebrated days for those of us working in the sector. On 8^th March we celebrate International Women’s Day #IWD and on 21^st March we cherish the World Water Day #WWD. So, it would be good to reflect once again on how exactly WASH is critical to the health and empowerment of women and girls throughout their life.

Let us imagine that you are a girl born to a economically challenged family in a village in the so called developing world where you and your family do not have access to safe water and sanitation.

If you are lucky enough to survive the first 5 years of your life and not die from diarrhoea or other water-borne diseases, the chances are very high that you are already walking a few hours per day to fetch water for your family and you are taking care of your younger siblings.

Then when the time comes for you to go to school, if your family does not have to prioritise your brothers’ education to yours, and if there is a school to attend, you may actually enrol at one. The chances are still very high that you have to walk a good half an hour to fetch water before going to school and answer the call of nature in the open since your school does not have any (functional) toilet. You probably get harassed and experience gender based violence during these visits.

Then sometimes when you are between 9 to 12 years old, one day you feel a lot of pain in your lower tummy and suddenly feel that you have wet yourselves. Embarrassed to death, when you finally can find a private corner, you notice the blood in your underwear and think you are going to die. Terrified you tell your older sister or friend and if you can overcome the shame, maybe you tell even your mother, only to learn that although you will not die, you will be going through this pain and embarrassment every month for what seems to be the rest of your life. You will be given a cloth or two, to manage your period. Of course, finding water to wash them and a private place to properly dry them would still be a challenge. You miss school either because you have a lot of pain, which you don’t know how to manage, or you or your family don’t want to risk getting embarrassed because of the blood on your clothes, or simply because there is no toilet or water at school where you can change your cloth or pads! Even in some countries, you might also end up staying in a shed during your period since you will be considered unclean!

Getting your period, is also considered start of your womanhood, and your family might start thinking that it is about time to marry you off, either to reduce the costs or to avoid that you start misbehaving or simply because that’s how it works. Of course you would not get any education about your reproductive system, nor for instance how to avoid unwanted pregnancies. If you are not married off, you will be told to avoid the boys!

By the time that you are 15 years old, the chances are very high that you are pregnant. If you are married and pregnant, you need the permission and money from your husband or his family to go for your check-ups. Mind you, you probably need to bring your own water in a bucket to the health centre, which you have to walk quite a distance to get to. And mind you, when you are pregnant, you need to use the washroom more often, but of course there is no toilet in public places or even health centres. By the way, your family might think that these visits don’t worth the trouble and you are better off with a traditional birth attendant, who usually does not have any hygienic place to do the check-ups nor have water to wash her hands with, even when you are delivering your baby!

And, if you are not married and pregnant, you can forget about going to the health center since the staff will not even talk to you. You probably end up with a traditional birth attendant who wouldn’t mind performing illegal abortion, and again have not washed her hands, when she puts them inside you or uses other terrifying unclean objects to perform an abortion. As you can guess, the chances that you actually survive this one, is very low.

Anyway, throughout your reproductive age, you probably would be pregnant pretty much every year. Of course you would not be able to get the rest or support you need during this time and have to still do most of the unpaid work around the house, without anyone recognising or appreciating it.

You may at some point in life also start doing some paid work to support your family. However, whenever someone at household gets sick or you have your period, you probably have to miss going to work and thereby your income. Talking about income, you are the one who would prioritise investing it in sanitation, whereas for your husband it comes as his 8^th or 9^th priority, but unfortunately it is often not you who decides what happens with your income, so still no toilet for your family.

When you lose your husband or your father, you probably will not inherit anything from them and all the assets would go to male member of your family. Often if you don’t have sons, or even when you do have them, this means that you need to rely on their mercy for food and shelter.

All these situations can get worse if you are living with any type of disability, or HIV/AIDS, or in places where there is too much or too little water, or if you are from a minority or displaced group.

Yet, generation after generation you have been the source of inspiration and driver of change within your family, community and throughout the world and your resilience and agency has brought the mankind where we are today.

And of course, while WASH programmes alone cannot tackle underlying causes of the barriers women and girls face through their life cycle, by fulfilling women and girls basic needs for access to water and sanitation, they can be the first step in the right direction. On the other hand, WASH programmes when designed and implemented in a gender responsive and transformative way can provide the opportunity to move beyond this and also address women and girls’ strategic needs, such as participation in decision-making processes within their family and communities and thereby contributing to their physical, political, socio-cultural and economic empowerment.

The article is inspired by a panel discussion with Sara Ahrari convened by WaterAid Canada, UNICEF and RESULTS Canada during International Development Week 2019 in Ottawa.

Pipe dream or possible: Reaching the furthest behind first in WASH sector?

By Sara Ahrari (Simavi) RWSN Theme Leader for the Leave no one behind Theme.

Simavi’s Programme Manager, Sara Ahrari, moderated a side event during the UNC Water and Health Conference on 1 November 2018. This event was convened by Simavi, Wateraid, Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN),London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and World Vision (WV). The purpose of this section was to reflect jointly on “who are left behind” from “Use of” and “Participation in decision making processes related to” WASH services, “what are the barriers for their inclusion” and “what can be done and what roles can different WASH stakeholder play to accelerate their inclusion”.

The session started with a short introduction to “Leave No One Behind” Concept in the WASH sector. Afterwards the participants were divided into groups to focus on a specific scenario related to multiple exclusion factors facing by different personas. Initially 8 personas were defined (for elaborated description of the personas, please click here) but based on the number of participants and their interests only 6 personas were discussed in the groups.

The groups were asked to work through the following process to come to recommendations (in form of a pitch) on how “Leave No One Behind” can be reached for the persona in their scenario:

Illustrate using mind map technique draw the barriers faced by the persona as a group
Inspire list anything that inspires them as individuals (people, products, programmes, services, innovations, insights, etc.).
Selection come up with as many ideas/ solutions/ practical recommendation to address the barriers faced by the persona, then cluster all the ideas and select one idea as a group to further work on it
Sketching draw a storyboard using pictures representing the idea or recommendation, who will be impacted by the idea, what would be their experience, the way idea would be rolled out. Prepare your pitch.
Pitch The idea to the plenary in one minute.

After the group work a Ms. Ellen Greggio presented Wateraid experience on using Washington Indicators on disability in their monitoring including the challenges and insights that application of such tool might entail.

Key results of the group exercise

Group 1-Mariette: who lives on daily wages and is a member of WASH committee.

The mind mapping exercise had led to identification of poverty, no support at household when husband is away, time constrain, lack of community support and lack of government support as main barriers faced by Mariette. The selected solutions were:

Share responsibilities: train more members of the committee to be able to do repair work, make sure roles are divided properly and backed up.
Increase awareness among community members/users: to pay their WASH costs (which are affordable) so that the repair work can be paid for; other support in forms of other incentives (i.e. help with the children) and manage expectations
Create a safe platform for everyone to share the experiences and challenges.

An interesting discussion which took place during the group exercise was selection of the “right” person for the committee and “dividing the roles”. While very valid points, one should be careful that defining “right” as people who have time to participate can lead to “leaving those who can’t afford to participate behind”. Also when dividing the roles, it is important to make sure that dominating community role (namely men being the decision maker and women doing the work) will not influence the decision making process. The group pitch can be seen here.

Group 2- Sharon: A young girl living with HIV/AIDS who produces & sells low cost sanitary napkin.

The participants indicated that Sharon is disempowered due to stigma and lack of access to education, has limited voice, suffers from trauma due to loss of her parents and lack of institutionalized support for the poor. The suggested solutions included:

Improved access to WASH services: City authorities, utilities and local government need to ensure that proper pro-poor WASH policies and services are available, provide subsidized tariffs, access to affordable sanitation and hygienic products. Advocacy organisations can influence policies to ensure that this will take place.
Increased learning opportunities: NGOs, faith-based organisations or vocational training institutes can provide skill and entrepreneurship training as well as scholarships.
Enhanced link to social services: Government of NGOs can create youth homes, facilitate peer support and mentorship (female, people with HIV/AIDS and business mentorships).

The group pitch can be seen here.

Group 3- Maria: :A visually impaired girl who is sent out to city to live with her aunt in slum area and earn income through begging on streets.

The main barrier identified for this persona was her visual impairment which in her situation causes dependency on family and strangers for support, poverty, lack of accessible WASH service and transport, unsafe and non-trustworthy environment at home and outside, which leads to mental health problems feeling as a burden and stress.

The group concluded that if Maria can be provided access to school and kept at school, many of these barriers would be overcome. This means that schools need to have inclusive education as well as access to safe sanitation and water. Schools also can facilitate “Eye vision test” and promote measures for preventable visual impairments not to occur. There should be also safe transport to and from school. Also the care-givers (aunt or her family) need to be supported to have increased income. Depending on the country, public awareness raising needs to be done on right to education, children’s right and disability rights. Legal protection and safety nets supports need to be provided to families with people with disabilities. The people with disability also need to be empowered and equipped with skills and knowledge which allows them to live an independent life.
The final pitch of the group can be seen here.

Group 4- Bilegt: A nomad man whose source of water is diminishing and has no access to proper sanitation.

The group had identified the following barriers:

Environmental: harsh environment due to increased effect of climate change and scarcity of water resources.
Social/cultural: due to challenges, there is increased migration to the cities which for Bilegt it means losing “his sense of being” and social support system.
Political: limited political voice and influence of population, conflict with companies, no investment in hydrogeological survey.
Economic: limited access to financial resources, loss of traditional income generating activity.
Physical: difficulty of access due to mobility.

An integrated understanding of solutions, combining bottom-up (socially inclusive) and top-down (sustainable solutions) approaches would be needed according to the group to remove these barriers. The group pitch can be see here.

Group 5- Ruksana: A 15 years old girl without forearms who is pregnant with her 2nd child.

The group identified the main barriers faced by Ruksana to be poverty, lack of support from family or community members, lack of education/trainings, disability, limited availability and distance from water sources, insecure feeling when using the latrine, social stigma inside and outside, married as a child and child pregnancy. The solution thought by group were:

Technological: Accessible toilets with locks which can be operated by people with disability, technology to support mobility, household access to safe drinking water (i.e. through filters).
Services: Accessible education/skill building centres with appropriate courses and technology for people with disability, identification & support by local government, regular follow up/ home visit by government/community health workers, optional services to deliver safe water.
Health: family planning methods (cycle beads), regular home visits by health workers.
Social Engagement & awareness: Awareness raising among different stakeholders (community leaders, men, local government, etc.).
Economic development: Increased livelihood options at the community level.

The group identified access to water and family planning option as priority to improve Ruksana’s situation.
You can see the pitch the group presented here.

Group 6- Amin: A district engineer in charge of WASH service delivery with insufficient resources, needing to prioritise different areas within the district.

Amin’s challenges were found to be rooted in legal, financial, knowledge, political barriers at the national level and cultural, knowledge, communication and financial at the community level. Lack of transparency and proper coordination between these two levels were also identified as a barrier. The solutions suggested by the group were:

Encourage private sector financial investment.
Dedicated structural leadership support to district level staffs.
District management support in communication and planning.
Town halls communicating plans to the communities.
Capacity building at all levels.
Relationship building based on trust.
Cultivating demands and grassroots community planning.
Transfer of power & decision making rights from national to district and lower levels.

The group’s pitch can be seen here.

Reflection and way forward

The side event had brought together participants from the different background and organisations, namely NGOs, knowledge institutes and government. As we have defined “Active contribution of the participants and lots of ideas not to leave anyone behind” as one of the success indicators for this event, we can say that it a very successful event thanks to the energetic and engaged participants.

We still hope to receive more stories of success (or constructive failures) and increased collaboration on “Leave No One Behind” and to “Reach the Furthest Behind First”. The conveners will continue to promote the dialogue on the topic in different platforms, in particular RWSN “Leave No One Behind” discussion group.

Participants’ feedback

Lena Bunzenmeyer, Global WASH Advisor, CAWST: “ I truly enjoyed the participatory session and I definitely learned a lot. It was by far my favourite session of the entire conference! Would it be possible to get a copy of the PowerPoint presentation that went along with the session? I’d like to bring it up at CAWST as an example of both participatory learning (we love learning new techniques from others!) and also how to approach the topic of inclusive WASH services. Thank you again for your excellent facilitation!”

Reposted with thanks from Simavi; the original blogpost is available here: https://simavi.org/long-read/pipe-dream-or-possible-reaching-the-furthest-behind-first-in-wash-sector/

Photo credits: Tom Flunder

RWSN at the UNC Water and Health Conference: Where Science Meets Policy

The Water and Health Conference: Where Science Meets Policy, organized by the Water Institute at the University of North Carolina (UNC), is one of the most important conferences for WaSH professionals. This year the conference has not only explored the interactions between drinking water supply, sanitation, hygiene, water resources and public health, but put also a strong emphasis on rural water supply in developing countries. Researchers, practitioners and policy-makers had the chance to present and lively debate

by Sandra Fuerst and Sean Furey (Skat Foundation)

The Water and Health Conference: Where Science Meets Policy, organized by the Water Institute at the University of North Carolina (UNC), is one of the most important conferences for WaSH professionals. This year the conference has not only explored the interactions between drinking water supply, sanitation, hygiene, water resources and public health, but put also a strong emphasis on rural water supply in developing countries. Researchers, practitioners and policy-makers had the chance to present and lively debate on following topics:

Measuring Progress Toward Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Targets
Water Scarcity
Rural Water Supply
WaSH Equity and Inclusion
WaSH in Emergencies

At this year’s conference, the RWSN and its partners have convened two side events, providing water professionals an interactive space for engaging on cutting-edge topics of rural water supply. These sessions translated the “virtual RWSN DGroups into real life discussion groups” as Stef Smits (IRC), the chair of the first side event, phrased it. The participating water experts shared their experiences and developed exciting ideas with their peers for challenging rural water contexts.

Universal and Sustainable Rural Water Services: Different Perspectives, Common Goals

In the first side event, participants were invited to understand two major concepts to apply them later through group discussions in a case study of an WaSH implementation organisation, HYSAWA, Bangladesh, presented by their Managing Director, Md. Nural Osman.

Sara Ahrari presented the NGO perspective of how organisations, like Simavi, use monitoring and data systems to promote Social Accountability and the holding duty-bearers to account when it comes to the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation. Miguel Vargas-Ramirez from the World Bank and Ellen Greggio from WaterAid presented then the development partner perspective on how data and monitoring can be used to raise the capacity of governments and service providers to deliver sustainable rural WaSH services, particularly rural water supply. This included on-going work to develop benchmarks for rural water service delivery, which WaterAid is testing in Myanmar.

Sara Ahrari (Simavi)

Elisabeth Liddle (Cambridge University)

Ellen Greggio (WaterAid)

Miguel Vargas-Ramirez (World Bank)

Prof. Rob Hope (Oxford University)

After the break, Elisabeth Liddle from Cambridge University, and Prof. Rob Hope from Oxford University, gave the research perspective on how data and monitoring is enabling them to generate deeper insights into why rural water supply systems fail and how to develop new ways of making them more sustainable.

After the concepts have been introduced, the participants applied them in smaller groups to the HYSAWA case study in Bangladesh. This case study was presented by HYSAWA (Hygiene, Sanitation and Water Supply) to come up with suggestions and advice on how his organisation can improve the quality and sustainability of their rural WaSH interventions. The audience debated questions around:

Who is responsible for monitoring and data collection? Who is accountable and feels responsible for what? Those who design the system?
Who is responsible for the service provision of water in rural areas? And who needs to be hold accountable for that?
What are the drivers to feeling responsible?
What are the services that needs to be done?
How do the processes need to be managed?

Stef Smits summarised the debates during this session on three levels:

Who? The answer that communities and local governments should be accountable for the service provision of water in rural areas seemed to be too easy as in fact it is not clear at all. The role of service providers in many contexts is not very well defined, also not in legal terms. Accountability is often spread over several layers. For example, minor operation and maintenance (O&M) services can be done on community level, while major O&M services can be provided through public services. Then the levels of accountability also need to be differentiated between service provider and service authority. This first differentiation will help to define who is responsible for what and will help the service authority to hold the service provider accountable. As soon as the roles of different stakeholders are clearly defined, it can be defined more specifically who needs to collect the data. The collection of data then needs to be spread over different levels, from household, community, service provider to authority level.

What? The debate started around the functionality of rural water supply devices and has shown that there is not a simple answer of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to functionality. Functionality needs to be distinguished between functional devices and functional services (i.e. O&M services). This led to the question how functionality should be measured and which other indicators should be taken into account. Should we bring water quality in as an indicator? Clearly, financial indicators are necessary. As the trend to use indicators and monitoring tools is increasing among service providers and governments in rural areas, it becomes increasingly necessary to define clear indicators for universal rural water services. Based on that development, we can start to understand rural water as a systemic issue.

How? The identified need to define clear indicators on different levels, raised the question of how the process of developing monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems should be managed. Even though governments were identified to lead this process, NGOs could support to trigger it. However, if a NGO has developed a working M&E systems, it cannot be simply handed over from a NGO to the government, without a well-planned transition phase. It also needs to be taken into account who “the government” is and on which level the government operates. Data and M&E systems will at the end always need a sector development approach.

Pipe Dream or Possible: Reaching the Furthest Behind First in the WASH Sector? – RWSN Side Event 2

The second side event was convened by RWSN (Simavi, Wateraid) with London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and World Vision. During this session, the participants developed human-centred solutions for “Reaching the Furthest Behind First” and “Leaving No One Behind” in the WASH sector.

The participants worked in several groups on different case studies of extremely vulnerable people (i.e. disabled pregnant child) that are exposed to extreme hazards in their environment (i.e. arsenic contamination of groundwater).

In several steps, the participants developed possible solutions based on their field of expertise: In a first step, they illustrated the social, cultural, physical, political and legal barriers that the imaginary persona faced, regarding their social inclusion. Then they created inspirational ideas of possible solutions to these barriers. The different options were heavily discussed before choosing one or more solutions. To illustrate the actions and stakeholders needed to implement these solutions, a story board was created by each group. Finally, the persona, storyboard and possible solution were presented in pitches to all participants.

The two side events have been great examples of how the RWSN works as its best: “Taking concrete examples and bring them together with key concepts from research and practice. This is the richness that RWSN provides: Linking practical questions with conceptional frameworks (Stef Smits)”.

UN-Water report: SDG6 on Water and Sanitation will not be achieved by 2030 at current rates of progress

UN-Water has released a new report on Water and Sanitation ahead of the High-level Political Forum for Sustanainable Development (HLPF) which presents, for each target, the latest data available for the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 global indicators. The report seeks to inform discussions among Member States during the HLPF (9 July -18 July 2018) in New York. The HLPF Forum will review progress especially on G6, G7, G11, G12, G15 and G17; you can see the Official Programme here.

The key message of this report is that the world will miss the SDG6 targets by 2030 at current rates of progress. It also highlights that only 50 percent of countries have comparable baseline estimates for most SDG 6 global indicators, making it difficult to track progress. It is essential to “harmonize methods and standards”, and establish a common understanding of how to assess Means of Implementation (MoI) across SDG 6. In addition to this report, UN-Water has also set up a webpage with examples of countries sharing their experiences.

RWSN had provided some comments on the draft report which was made available by UN-Water earlier this year. By and large these comments still hold – you can find out about what we said here and our take on how the report addresses sustainability of services, accountability, self-supply, capacity development, water and energy, groundwater and public participation.

So, what does the final report say? It compiles data and information available on the SDG6 Targets, including:

Target 6.1: Achieve access to safe and affordable drinking water: There are still 844 million people who lack access to basic water services, and 2.1 billion people who lack water that is accessible, available when needed and free from contamination. The report highlights that extending access to safe drinking water for all is a “huge challenge” that will not be achieved if there is no increase in “investment from governments and other sources” and a “strengthening in institutional arrangements” for managing and regulating drinking water.
Target 6.2: Achieve access to sanitation and hygiene and end open defecation: There are still 2.3 billion people who lack access to basic sanitation services, and 4.5 billion people who lack safely managed sanitation services. Only 27 per cent of the population in least developed countries has access to soap and water for handwashing. Extending universal access to sanitation and hygiene won’t be achieved if there is not an increase in “investment and a strengthening of the capacity of local and national authorities” for managing and regulating sanitation systems.
Target 6.3: Improve water quality, wastewater treatment and safe reuse: Freshwater pollution is prevalent and increasing in many parts of Latin America, Africa and Asia. The lack of water quality monitoring in many parts of the world does not allow for an exact global estimate of water pollution.
Target 6.4: Increase water-use efficiency and ensure freshwater supplies: Nowadays more than 2 billion people live in countries experiencing high water stress. The agriculture sector is the largest user of freshwater; it uses 70 per cent of global water withdrawals. In the report, some techniques to save water have been presented like “increasing productivity of food crops”, “improving water management practices and technologies”, “growing fewer water intensive crops in water scarce regions”, “reducing food loss and waste”, and “importing food grown from water rich countries”.
Target 6.5: Implement integrated water resources management (IWRM) including transboundary cooperation: While all countries have at least started implementing various aspects of IWRM, only modest progress has been made in terms of implementing a fully integrated approach. The average national proportion of transboundary basins covered by an operational arrangement is only 59 per cent.
Target 6.6: Protect and restore water-related ecosystems: current baseline data of the indicator “do not allow for a proper picture of the state of freshwater ecosystems”, which is why further detailed data including “quantitative, geospatial and qualitative” data are necessary.

The report also looks at the targets related to the means of implementation of SDG6:

Target 6.a: Expand international cooperation and capacity-building: 80 per cent of Member States have insufficient finance to meet national WASH targets. The current indicator based on ODA (Official Development Assistance) does not reflect all elements of the target. That is why it is necessary to complement with additional information relating to “capacity development, human resources and other elements”.
Target 6.b: Support stakeholder participation: In order to empower marginalized groups and sustainable service delivery, “local communities have to participate in water and sanitation management”. But even if the current indicator monitors the existence of policies and procedures for local community participation, it does not show if “the participation is genuine or meaningful”. This links to the recent report published by our partners End Water Poverty, Coalition Eau, Watershed Empowering Citizens Consortium, the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC) and with the support of Sanitation and Water for All (SWA), on accountability mechanisms for SDG6, and which was the focus of a recent RWSN webinar in English and Spanish.

In conclusion, the UN-Water report focuses on the enablers of the SDG6, highlighting that:

“Inequalities must be eliminated”. It is important to have data in order to identify disadvantage and provide services to groups like women, children, poor, indigenous people and rural communities. You can find some recent RWSN webinars on Making Water Work for Women, and Making Rights Real for rural communities here.
“Private financing, promoting blended finance and microfinance” should be developed in order to optimize domestic and public finance. You can see a recent RWSN webinar on “grown up” finance for rural water here.

Photo credit: World Bank