Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Monitoring Report 1990 · 820 INT92 Water Supply and Sanitation...

820 INT92

Water Supply andSanitation Sector Monitoring

Report 1990(Baseline Year)

WprldHealth

Organization(WHO)

Water Supplyand SanitationCollaborative

Council

United NationsChildren'1^

Fund

•;. 141/142•:;.:;gu»

Wafer Supply and Sanitation SectorMonitoring Report 1990

(Baseline Year)7Tiis publication contains maps, charts and tables developed from preliminary 7 990 baseline

data on sector coverage, management and funding, which were kindly provided by thosecountries listed in Table 1 on page 9. As 7990 was the first time that the WASAMS (Water andSanitation Monitoring System) format was used by governments to assess the status of the sector,

caution should be exercised in its interpretation due to the preliminary nature of the data. It is,however, hoped that both data quality, accuracy and reporting will improve over time as a

result of the recent and future planned monitoring capacity building workshops (for country levelpersonnel) being undertaken with WHO and UNICEF assistance.

The boundaries and colour maps used in this publication do not imply any judgment on the legalor other status of any territory, endorsement or acceptance of any boundary,

or guarantee of the accuracy on the part of WHO and UNICEF.

Published November 7 992. ® Printed on recycled paper.

Table of ContentsForeword ,. HiExecutive Summary 1I. Sector Overview ...........................................3

Main Lessons of the 1980si...."... 4General Lessons 4Specific Monitoring Lessons 4Need for Enhanced Sector Monitoring 4Response to the Needs 5

II. Strategies of the Monitoring Mechanism 6Starting with Simple Core Indicators., óThe "Open-ended" System 7Strengthening Country-level Capacities for Sector Monitoring 7Data Collection Mechanisms 7Data Processing, Analysis and Reporting 7

III. Analysis of Baseline Year Results ....8Representativeness of 1990 Data ...8Coverage ,.,.........,.,,. 10The Need for Increased Focus upon Marginal Urban Areas 10Meeting Basic Needs through More Aggressive Promotion

and use of Appropriate Low-Cost Technologies 10Management 12Community Contribution to Operation and

Maintenance Costs 12

Funding 12Investments in the Sector .: 12A Hidden Message 75Analysis by Geographic Sub-groupings 75

IV. Framework for Improved Sector Planning 20Linkage Between Sector Monitoring, Planning

and Advocacy 20Framework for Monitoring in the Context of Goal Setting.... 20Meeting the Challenge 20

V. Conclusion 24

Annex I: Participants of Workshops whoContributed to the JMP Effort ..............25

Annex II: Milestones and Achievementsof the JMP 29

Annex III: Indicative Technology Categoriesand their Respective Costs 30

Annex IV: Additional Maps and Tables 31Annex V: Generic Guidelines for Sector Monitoring

at Country Level 39

WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme • i

Maps, Tables, Figures and Boxes

MapsM a p I .. ' . . . •••• . . •••• .••• . • . ; :••• " • . : : . • • • • • • V

WASAMS 1990: Countries Reported.. ...8M a p 2 "•'• • : " • : / :;

• ; . : . • •'. '

Safe Water Supply: Total population with accessto functioning safe water supply . . 11

Map 3Sanitation: Total population with access to adequate

excreta disposal . . . . . . ; , . . . , , , . . , ; . . , . , , . „ . . , . . . . . . .......;.......... 11Map 4 ' :' "•'•' " ' .: .; ;:. ' / ' ' '•'•[

Safe Water Supply: Totalurban population withaccess to functioning safe water supply ..,.,... 31

M a p 5 :. ' • ] ' y : ': " - :: ; '. • ;.. • • ' : : : ' •' ::'.;.": '

Safe Water Supply: Total rural population with accessto functioning safe water supply 31

M a p 6 • ; / • '..;':'. . . - . • : . • : 1 . : • ' • • • ' . • '.

Sanitation: Total urban population with access toadequate excreta disposal.. .................32

M a p 7 './;'••:...': : .'• ^ . ^ . ' • . • Ï ,.••. V

Sanitation: Total rural population with access toadequate excreta disposal ., ...;.32

TablesT a b l e 1 : ; • • • • ' • ; : : .•;, .• • • / : •'• . . " ': . ¡ W :

Countries Reporting (by UN Economic Commission Region)........ 9

T a b l e 2 ' • • " • . . . ; • • , ; . . • ' • • : . • ; : : : : ; ' ' , ' ' " ' •

Level of Reporting by Region (by UN EconomicCommission Region)..,.,.,...,...,.....,.... ...........9

Table 3Reporting by Information Category .............. 10T a b l e 4 . : :: • '•. : : : : ; : ' ' ' : • • > i : , \

Respondents'Ability to Provide Disaggregated Data onUrban Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage byMarginal and High Income Populations 10

T a b l e 5 '••.: , • [ ' • . / : : ' Y ? • ' • • • • ' • • " ' ' . ' • ' > . . • . , ) • : • .

Respondents'Ability to Provide a Breakdown of ServiceCoverage by Different Technologies ,i — 12

T a b l e é ': '. • •• . •'•/ . •.'.': ; ' '•'"':••

Global Access to Water and Sanitation 12Table 7Africa: Total Water Supply- Urban and Rural Combined 33

T a b l e 8 ' ; ' , ' ' ••''•'.' •• : :;.:V: :V ' • ; : .' .Africa: Total Sanitation - Urban and Rural Combined 34

Table 9Latin America & Caribbean: Total Water Supply—

Urban and Rural Combined .:.......... . . .35Table 10Latin America & Caribbean: Total Sanitation-

Urban and Rural Combined ,.,.36

Table 11Asia and the Pacific: Total Water Supply-

Urban and Rural Combined 37table 12Asia and the Pacific - Urban and Rural Combined 3 7T a b l e 1 3 ;• . . :i,". :./.' ;•.., V'- :\ ;.: :. ' , ;•. ' : . '. •West Asia - U r b a n and Rural Combined.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38Table 14West Asia - Urban and Rural Combined . . .38

/ f i g u r e s / ....•:..•.. . •' • . . . / : • . ' \ ' i : '• •F i g u r e 1Water Supply: Proportion of Population Served by

Technology Types.................. ........ 13F i g u r e 2 :' • , : ' ' •' : • ' . • • '

Sanitation: Proportion of Population Served byTechnology Types 13

F i g u r e 3 ' ' v . . ' ' • . .• ' ' • • " ' • • • " . . ' • • • ' ~ ' • : ' .

Water Supply: Contribution to Operation andMaintenance Costs 14

Figure 4Water Supply: Contribution to Capital Investment 14F i g u r e 5 '••: ' • : • • ; • • ; • . •"•• • • . ' : • . ; . ;.•' • • " • • ; ; . '••

Sanitation: Contribution to Operation and Maintenance Costs .. 14Figure 6Water Supply Coverage by Region: Technology Types Used ..... 1 óF i g u r e 7 • • : : ' : : • • > • • • • • . ' • : ; •/'• ".'.'•• ":':-~\ • • ' . : : ' : . ;:':'::".•:'•':•.•:••,.•. :

Sanitation Service Coverage by Region: TechnologyTypes Used ......,.:...,..,....,;......:............. 18

' F i g u r e 8 . •• ; • : . • • • ' ;•• ••• . '••. . • • , ; . . . . • • ' " • : • • '

Conceptual Framework Linking Monitoring Planningand Advocacy .......;.......... ..,..,...,21

F i g u r e 9 ' ' ' : ' : : ' ' ; ; : • . . : . '••' • • ; . • • • • • • • . ' ' . ' . . ; . . . . ; •• "/•'.-'•"' : ' : .

A Framework for Goal Setting..................... ....,,...22

B o x e s . • • : ' . y . : " : . : • • • : • . : . •

• B o x . l - • : • : • • .,• • . . ; • 7 v '•'•' \ . " : ' : •' . • . [ ' • ' . • ' • • :• . . • • :.

Information Management Systems Fall into Three BroadCategories ,....6

Box 2Inadequate Cost Recovery for Water Supply 15Box 3Financial Resource Allocation is a function of Political Will........ 15Box 4Summary of Salient Points ,..,..;........................ 23Box 5Willingness versus Ability to Pay :,.,.,................,... 24Box 6The Economic Cost of Not Providing Water and Sanitation 24

ii • JMP Annual Report 1990

ForewordAccess to water supply and sanitation

services which is basic to health andi economic growth is far from satis-

factory today. In fact, to continue in the 1990swith the same policies, resource allocations,technologies and implementation rales of the1980s would result in a widening of the gapbetween the served and unserved in the rapidlyexpanding urban populations by the year2000. Where facilities are available forprovision of such services, they are more oftenthan not inadequately managed. The resourcesand funds are limited for increasing coverageto the unserved. Despite the development andpromotion of low-cost technologies, thebetter-off segments of the community havebenefited more than the poorer, largelybecause of insufficient focus on the unserved.To be different in the '90s and beyond,stronger monitoring is necessary to be awareof the present position, to plan better for thefuture and to ensure that the available re-sources and future effort are carefully chan-nelled to the more needy of assistance. Alongwith monitoring, greater collaboration andcooperation will be necessary among allconcerned, both at country level and amongstexternal support agencies to further thedevelopment of sustainable services in thesector.

The Water Supply and Sanitation Collabo-rative Council has been a strong advocate ofgood and selective monitoring. The value ofmonitoring and collaboration as prerequisitesfor better planning and greater progress isappreciated more today and has received much

emphasis at major international conferences.Two Council member agencies who have beenmost concerned and committed to the promo-tion of better water supply and sanitationservices have responded by joining forces tohelp developing countries to institute a goodquality, high utility value, monitoringprogramme.. lhe World Health Organization (WHO)has the interests of global health, the UnitedNations Children's Fund (UNICEF) has theinterests of the child (and the mother). Theresults of this collaborative effort are presentedin this report in a very informative and alsoprovocative way. Their messages are food forthought for planners and decision makers.WHO and UNICEF are to be thanked for avery valuable contribution together with thosedeveloping countries which actively partici-pated in making it possible. The CollaborativeCouncil is very pleased to distribute this reportto all its members, and to others who areconcerned with the sector not only for thevalue of the information it provides but also toacknowledge a good collaborative effort. Thereport will be produced annually to update theposition.

Margaret Catley-CarlsonChairpersonWater Supply and SanitationCollaborative Council

Better-off segments of

the community have

benefited more than

the poorer, largely

because of insufficient

focus on the unserved.

WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme • iii

iv • JMP Annual Report 1990

Executive SummaryI nadequate management of the water and

sanitation sector during the 1970s and1980s resulted in calls for enhanced sector

monitoring from recent global internationalfora including the New Delhi Consultation,the World Summit for Children, and theInternational Conference on Water and theEnvironment. The United Nations GeneralAssembly also recognized in its resolution 45/181 of 1990 that efforts would have to bestepped up during the 1990s to "monitorservice coverage for both water and sanita-tion", and decided to review progress in thesector at its 50th session in 1995.

During the international Drinking WaterSupply and Sanitation Decade (IDWSSD),1981 -1990, WHO collected information onwater supply and sanitation coverage globallythrough its decade monitoring system knownas DEMOS. Using this information, WHOproduced a series of five publications showingthe status of the sector every few years, thelast and most recent being for 1990, entitled,"The International Drinking Water Supply andSanitation Decade: End of decade review (asat December 1990) WHO/CWS/92.12". Aspart of the IDWSSD review process, WHOand others identified the need to strengthenmonitoring at country level in recognition ofthe fact that past monitoring was a passiveprocess which did not aim to influence sectordevelopment. For the 1990s, monitoringshould play a pro-active role by being used asa management tool. To enable such an evolu-tion, a limited number of relevant indicatorshas to be employed, the frequency of monitor-ing has to be increased (to at least once ayear), and capacity for monitoring must beenhanced at national, sub-national and com-munity levels. It was in response to thoseneeds that WHO and UNICEF launched aJoint Monitoring Programme (JMP) in 1990.The last DEMOS report for 1990 and the 1990"Baseline Year" JMP report, complement eachother. Subsequent JMP yearly reports willprovide country by country data in an annexreport and also on computer diskette.

While past experience has shown thatregular monitoring is crucial to effectivemanagement, it has also demonstrated the

difficulty in monitoring many sector indicatorssimultaneously. As a result, several recentmeetings (attended by water and sanitationprofessionals from governments, externalsupport agencies and others) resulted in theidentification of three "core indicators" beingproposed as the basis for enhancing sectormonitoring in the 1990s. These indicators havebeen incorporated in a computer monitoringprogramme named WASAMS (water andsanitation monitoring system). They arecoverage, management and funding. How-ever, cognizant of the fact that at regional, sub-regional, and especially at country level, otherspecific indicators may be identified orrequired, the expansion of monitoring systemsbeyond the "core indicators" is thus foreseenand catered for in the programme.

The focus of WHO and UNICEF supportthrough the JMP is to strengthen sectormonitoring capacity at country level. Measuresbeing taken to this effect include the organiza-tion of regional monitoring workshops; inter-ministerial meetings to strengthen sectorcoordination; establishment of nationalmonitoring units (NMU) within the appropri-ate government structure(s); determination ofrealistic sector goals; and establishment ofeffective frameworks for sector monitoring.Governments are also being urged to buildupon and optimize existing data collectionsystems rather than create new ones.

The manual completion of sector monitor-ing forms at country level is being computeraided via WASAMS for data aggregation,processing, analyses and reporting. This isbeing done initially at national level in order toobtain data for the baseline year. However, butmore importantly, governments and otheragencies involved in the sector are stronglyencouraged by the JMP to simultaneouslysupport (with resources and training) monitor-ing initiatives from the grass roots (commu-nity) level upwards.

In this report only the "core indicators" areanalyzed; however, other achievements/constraints and activities related to global andregional promotion of the water and sanitationsector are also featured. This report is essen-tially aimed at policy and decision makers at

Inadequate

management of

the water and

sanitation sector during

the 1970s and 1980s

resulted in calls for

enhanced sector

monitoring from recent

global international

fora.

WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme • 1

The preliminary data

available indicate that

governments are

subsidizing services to

high-income populations

by as much as 70

percent of the operation

and maintenance costs.

the national level but also their counterparts inExternal Support Agencies (ESAs) with theobjective of highlighting the importance ofpro-active monitoring as a management toolfor the 1990s. It also serves to focus on theinequities and disparities existing in the sectoras we enter the last decade of the currentcentury.

Through enhanced monitoring capacity atcountry level, it is hoped that similar reportingwill take place. This should spur advocacyinitiatives for increased resource allocationand restructuring aimed at more equitablesector development in the near future.

The 1990 "Baseline Year" report is thefirst in a scries of yearly reports to be madethroughout the 1990s. It will be used as abenchmark to monitor progress of sector goalstowards "universal access" to water supplyand sanitation. The report utilizes for the firsttime the WASAMS format which was used by70 countries out of a total of approximately130 who received the questionnaire in late1990 to assess the status of their sector. Ananalysis of these questionnaires and subse-quent recommendations are put forward.

The disaggregation of urban populationinto high-income (or more affluent urban) andurban marginal substantiated that a consider-able disparity exists between high-incomeurban and marginal urban populations regard-ing their access to services. Likewise, thedisaggregation of coverage into differentlevels of service has provided planners withmore objective information whilst, at the sametime, highlighting the existence of disparitiesin resource allocations. The latter indicatesclearly that despite the aggressive promotionin the 1980s of an array of low-cost options toprovide services to the unserved, these haveyet to be seriously considered by governmentsand external support agencies.

There is broad-based evidence of inad-equate policies on cost recovery which haveled to large capital outlays for rehabilitation ofhigh-cost systems, mostly to benefit the better-off. Governments tend to concentrate theirsector investments on new systems and in therehabilitation of existing systems in urbanareas, with a clear bias towards high-costsystems. External support agencies (ESAs)almost match investments by governments insuch areas. The ESAs do, however, alsosupport programmes in rural areas.

The preliminary data available indicate thatgovernments arc subsidizing services to high-income populations by as much as 70 percentof the operation and maintenance costs. Mean-while evidence exists indicating that marginalurban communities are very willing to contrib-ute to operation and maintenance costs.

An alternative approach for the efficientutilization of scarce resources is urgentlyrequired. Tt is paramount that governments andESAs see resource allocations to the sector inthe context of economic investments fordevelopment, rather than social expenditures(see Box 3, page 15, and Box 6, page 24).Such an approach would necessitate therestructuring and reallocation of sector re-sources, and the forging of government andcommunity partnerships for: capacity buildingat community level for management of ser-vices; the promotion and use of appropriatelow-cost technologies; and the establishmentof affordable backup support systems for spareparts and maintenance to ensure sustainabilityof services, especially in marginal urban andrural areas where most of the unserved reside.

A strong synergistic effect between sectormonitoring, planning, and advocacy has beenrecognized as the basis to accelerate water andsanitation service coverage in the 1990s.Enhanced sector monitoring can pave the wayfor improved sector planning. It can alsoprovide the basis for public information andadvocacy campaigns from community level upto national level, which, in turn, can generatethe momentum towards the attainment ofobjectives.

The gap between current service coverageand the ultimate objective of "universal ac-cess" is very large in many developing coun-tries. Planning (and monitoring as a manage-ment tool) can therefore be of assistance to thesector only if goals are realistic. A sectormonitoring framework is thus necessary to en-hance the planning process. It comprises a situ-ation analysis of sector policies, estimation ofthe resource base, selection of technology andstrategy options and setting of sector goals.

The final portion of this report offers aconceptual framework for sector professionals,policy and decision makers (at all levels) tofacilitate development of pragmatic plans ofaction from community level up to nationallevel, i.e., national plans of action. ®

2 • JMP Annual Report 1990

I. Sector OverviewOn 10 November 1980, the United

Nations Genera! Assembly pro-claimed the period 1981-1990 as the

International Drinking Water Supply andSanitation Decade (IDWSSD). The primarygoal then envisaged for the decade was theattainment of full access to water supply andto sanitation by all inhabitants in the develop-ing countries by the year 1990.

In fact, the IDWSSD provided access foran additional 1,347 million people to safewater supplies, and sanitation facilities forsome 748 million. However, despite thesemajor accomplishments, over 1,200 millionpeople, 30 percent of the developing world'spopulation, still lacked access to safe waterand 1,700 million (40 percent) were withoutadequate sanitation at the end of the decade,according to a World Health Organization(WHO) evaluation of IDWSSD, which wasprepared in 1990. The majority of thesedeprived people reside in rural regions and inlow-income, marginal urban areas of develop-ing countries.

With this in mind, the developing countriesand the External Support Agencies (ESAs)reached a broad consensus to continue theexisting thrust of the IDWSSD beyond 1990and to harness that drive to coincide with thegoal of "Health for All by the Year 2000".

The United Nations General Assemblyrecognized that efforts would have to bestepped up during the 1990s if safe watersupply and adequate sanitation facilities for allwere to be the goal by the end of the century.General Assembly resolution 45/181 urgedgovernments to stress key objectives, andagreed to review progress made in the provi-sion of water and sanitation services at its 50thsession in 1995.

One major constraint to achieving thesegoals in many developing countries is thelarge size and complexity of the water andsanitation sector. The problem is furthercompounded by the wide range of institutionsand organizations that frequently vie with oneanother at the expense of collaborativeendeavours, thus highlighting the urgent needfor better coordination within the overallsector. Joint sector monitoring for enhancedplanning and advocacy offers one approach

that might lead to improved coordination andcooperation throughout the sector.

Significant progress was achieved duringthe 1980s with the rediscovery and improve-ment of various simple and low-cost water andsanitation technologies. This progress couldnot have been achieved without communityparticipation, especially the involvement ofwomen in the decision-making, planning andmanagement phases, initiatives ranged fromthe UNDP/World Bank project on handpumpsand publication of the UNCHS-HABITATmanual on "The Design of Shallow SewerSystems" to the promotion of ventilatedimproved pit (VIP) latrines by the BlairInstitute of Zimbabwe. Two nations whichepitomized such an approach by dint of theirlarge scale application of low-cost handpumptechnologies in the 1980s were India andBangladesh. Their example notwithstanding,most developing countries have yet to convertand switch to the large scale use of low-costtechnologies and community participatoryefforts to accelerate service coverage amongtheir unserved populations.

While the IDWSSD accomplished much inthe period 1981-1990, continuation of a"business as usual" approach, drawing on thesame policies, resources and technologies andinvolving the same rate of coverage as appliedin the 1980s, could only prolong, beyond theyear 2000, the goal of "universal access". Bythe year 2000, the gap between those withwater and sanitation services and those lackingthem will have increased significantly. Thisholds especially true for urban areas wherepopulation growth rates are highest and thedisparity between rich and poor is growing.

Numerous appeals in the 1980s highlightedthe urgent need to respond to the chronic lackof basic water and sanitation services for therapidly expanding, low-income, marginalizedurban populations. Little progress was made.These indigents frequently live under the worstenvironmental conditions imaginable, withinsufficient or no access at all to safe watersupplies and/or sanitary facilities. In addition,they often have to pay exorbitant prices forvery limited quantities of water of question-able quality, at costs which can represent asmuch as 20 percent of a family budget1. In

The primary goal then

envisaged for the

decade was the

attainment of full access

to water supply and to

sanitation by all

inhabitants in the

developing countries by

the year 1990.


The urgent need to

improve and strengthen

sector monitoring and

information

management has been

put forward and

documented on several

different occasions.

stark contrast, services to their wealthier urbanneighbours are heavily subsidized and ofrelatively high quality.

The health and productive capacity ofmillions of individuals and households,hundreds of thousands of communities, andsome 70 developing nations is already seri-ously constrained in the absence of these vitalwaler and sanitation services. To furtherpostpone addressing these two basic needsmight create a greater imbalance. The absenceof a suitable, workable monitoring system tofocus attention on those in need only serves tomask the disparities between the two groups.The introduction of such a monitoring systemwould also focus greater attention on theurgent need to optimize water and sanitationsector investments to redress the imbalance.

Main Lessons of the 1980sDespite progress made in developing mod-

els for the sustainable development of waterand sanitation programmes in rural and peri-urban areas, greater efforts are required tomake them workable in practical terms, espe-cially if the rapid acceleration of sustainablecoverage is to be assured. Greater progressmight also have resulted if systematic manage-ment principles had been applied to the waterand sanitation sector during the 1980s.

General Lessons:• Low-cost technology projects in develop-

ing countries receive as little as 4 percentof the estimated total annual external fund-ing of $3,000 million devoted to the waterand the sanitation sector according toWHO statistics of the 1980s. Meanwhilethe firm commitment of developing coun-tries to such projects is indicated by a six-fold increase in their funding since 1980.

• Nearly all developing countries lack sys-tematic action plans offering guidelines formethodical approaches to sectoral activities.

• Women's involvement in decision making,planning and management, crucial for effec-tive community participation, has been nei-ther systematically encouraged nor applied,but is, at best, pursued on an ad hoc basis.

• The promotion and acceptance of cost-sharing mechanisms, including cost recov-ery schemes for operation and mainte-nance, etc., face formidable resistance at

government and consumer levels in somecountries, given the widely accepted normto consider water as "a free commodity",and are difficult to put in practice at thecommunity level,

• Maintenance still poses significant prob-lems, regardless of the appropriateness ofthe technologies concerned. The problemsrelate mainly to sustainable funding for theprovision of spare parts, lack of sufficientbackup services, and poor support for ca-pacity training at community level.

• The lack of trained professional and sub-professional personnel within the sectorhampers efforts in the developing countriesto upgrade the sector and related services.

Specific Monitoring Lessons:• Most developing countries are ill-equipped

to monitor many sector indicators simulta-neously, especially if the indicators are them-selves not easily measurable to begin with.

• In many countries, crude "guesstimating"of sector status, usually by one centralizeddepartment/ministry, acting independentlyof other partners in the water and sanitationsector, has inhibited or discouraged the useof sector monitoring as a management tool.

• The sector has not effectively used simplemeasurable indicators suitable for the kindof "pulse taking" essential to providingplanners and decision makers with relevantinformation.

• The devolution of responsibilities, monitor-ing included, to the community level is notbeing actively pursued in spite of the strongcorrelation between such action and sectorsustainability. Through enhanced monitor-ing it is possible to make optimal use ofsuch data for more equitable resource allo-cation, planning and management.

Need for Enhanced Sector MonitoringThe urgent need to improve and strengthen

sector monitoring and information manage-ment has been put forward and documented onseveral different occasions. The New DelhiConsultation sponsored by the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP), the WorldSummit for Children organized by UNICEF,the Declaration of Puerto Rico spearheadedby the Pan American Health Organization


(PAHO), all of which took place in September1990, and the United Nations Secretary-General's report to the 45th General Assem-bly in 1990 on the "Achievements of theTDWSSD 1981-1990", all indicated the needto "monitor service coverage for both watersupply and sanitation". As recently as January1992, the need to enhance sector monitoringwas again raised, this time at the InternationalConference on Water and the Environment(ICWE) convened by the World Meteorologi-cal Organization (WMO), on behalf of theUnited Nations Administrative Committee onCoordination and the Intcrsecretariat Groupfor Water Resources (ACC/ISGWR), in Dublin.

Efforts to monitor the sector in the 1980slacked the means to regularly and systemati-cally track progress in the use of low-costtechnologies, allocation of sector funding, orsustainability through community involve-ment. Therefore, it is essential to devisebroadly representative and acceptable indica-tors to serve as yardsticks by which progresscan be measured, if the water and sanitationsector is to meet the goals set for the 1990s.

If monitoring is to function as a manage-ment tool, it should reflect the following threesteps in a cyclical manner:

Assessment of the current sector situation;Analysis of the constraints affecting sector

acceleration and the identification of potentialways to overcome these limitations;

Action in response to the foregoingassessment and analysis.

The current monitoring initiative permitsassessment of the current sector situation,analysis of the constraints and opportunitiesfor overcoming these, and action based on theassessment and analysis. While allowing forthe disaggrcgation of statistics on servicecoverage for "high income" (urban) and "lowincome" (marginal urban) and rural popula-tions, the system also provides an indicator forassessing technology application and commu-nity involvement.

Response to the NeedsGiven the clear-cut demand for improved

sector monitoring, the World Health Organiza-tion (WHO) and the United Nations Children'sFund (UNICEF), responding to the GeneralAssembly's decision to review progress in thesector at its 50th session in 1995, decided toincorporate the strengthening of sector man-agement through monitoring into their joint

water and sanitation activities which were al-ready in progress. The two agencies launcheda Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) forthe sector in 1990.

The JMP was established primarily toprovide support to developing countries basedon the demand for enhancing monitoringcapacity at country level. This initiative is afirst step in what is envisaged as a muchbroader participatory venture involving othermultilateral and bilateral agencies, govern-ments, non-governmental organizations(NGOs) and, most importantly, the communi-ties themselves.

.Sector monitoring is linked to sector-ac-tion-planning comprising the establishment ofrealistic goals and the mechanism and strate-gies to achieve these. Monitoring involves thestrengthening of national data collection pro-cesses and networks, and also systematic as-sessment, analysis and responsive action, in-cluding corrective and timely measures totackle problems. Thus monitoring is placedwithin the broader context of country-levelsector management and capacity building.

Meeting the challenge of "universalaccess" to water and sanitation by the year2000 necessitates frequent and systematicmonitoring of a limited number of measurablecore indicators to track progress.

By gradually working from the nationallevel downwards and simultaneously fromcommunity level upwards, the calibre of ac-quired data can be expected to improve in ac-curacy over time.

Aggregation of all information can beundertaken by computer at central level. Tntime, such aggregation and local data process-ing, analysis, and reporting might also bedecentralized. This would enable provincial, aswell as national authorities to regularlyappraise sector performance and subsequentlytake remedial actions as necessary and appro-priate. Sector monitoring would thus becomeclosely linked to both sector planning andinformation management.

Enhanced sector management would meanthat existing resources would be more effi-ciently used. This outcome can be used foradvocacy at national and international levels,to attract more resources for acceleration ofsector coverage. ®1 Urban Example - Prospective for the Future(Water .Supply and Sanitation to Urban MarginalAreas of Tegucigalpa, Honduras), UNICEF.

Efforts to monitor the

sector in the 1980s

lacked the means to

regularly and

systematically track

progress in the use of

low-cost technologies,

allocation of sector

funding, or

sustainability through

community

involvement.

WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme »5

H. Strategies of theMonitoringMechanism

Starting With Simple Core Indicators

A previously noted, a simple monitoringapproach would facilitate regular andL systematic sector management at

several levels. Responding to this need, theJMP facilitated a series of meetings attendedby water and sanitation professionals fromGovernments, External Support Agencies(ESAs) and others. Their discussions yieldedthe following three "core indicators":

Coverage: Quantifies the population servedwith different systems ranging from householdwater and sewerage connections, to hand-pumps and improved pit latrines.

Management: Seeks to quantify thecontribution made by users, beneficiaries orcommunities to operation and maintenance(O&M) costs. This management indicatorattempts to put a monetary value to commu-nity inputs for operation, maintenance and

management. Although it is recognised thatsuch a proxy indicator cannot satisfactorilyreflect the total spectrum of community inputs,it is however, hoped to improve the monitoringof community management over time.

Funding: Used to estimate the total fundsinvested in the sector and to determine theproportion of investments made in low-costtechnologies. Information obtained from dataon funding will assist decision makers tomonitor whether investments for the unservedpopulations are adequate and what policychanges are needed.

Information management systems fall intothree broad categories (see Box 1 ). The initialpurpose of this report aims to provide policymakers and planners with a macro picture ofthe sector using the three core indicators. It ishoped that through this process the needs ofthe sector will be firmly established on the

B O X 1Information Management Systems

Fall into Three Broad Categories

i Electronic data processing (EDP) is, simply put, theelectronic processing of routine operations such as billing,water loss computation, inventory, personnel, etc. The objectiveis to achieve an increased efficiency of existing operations.

i Management information systems (MIS) entails theaggregation of information from the EDP level for operationaldecision making — that is, project level management andenhanced metering, technology choice, reallocation ofresources at project level, etc. MIS requires specific and detailedinformation.

i Decisions support systems (DSS) are designed tofacilitate the process of decision making at the strategic andpolicy making level. DSS are not necessarily directly related toexisting and ongoing operations or institutions; they also seek toprovide information on areas not covered by ongoingoperations. This implies that a significant portion of theinformation generated at the MIS/EDP levels is of little use atthe DSS level. Additionally, information from non-registered ornon-formal agencies, such as those operated by church groups,local NGOs, etc., may also feed into DSS. One could add tothis extra-operational category of data (EOD) socio-economic,demographic and epidemiological information.

The following diagram may help to illustrate theinter-relationship between these categories ofinformation management systems.

Conceptual Diagramof Information Management Systems

Strategic/PolicyInformationManagement

OperationalInformation

Tj. Management

EDP: Electronic Data Processing*MIS: Management Information Systems*DSS: Decisions Support SystemsEOD: Extra Operational Data (JMP Terminology)* Operational Information Management

The Water and Sanitation Monitoring System (WASAMS)developed by the JMP is intended as a DSS.


political agenda for responsive positive action.This acknowledges the fact that informationalone does not necessarily lead to change.Therefore, follow-up action by sector profes-sionals, other partners and communities fromgrass root level upwards is necessary tofacilitate change.

The "Open-ended" SystemThe Water and Sanitation Monitoring Sys-

tem (WASAMS) currently operates manuallyvia (hard copy) questionnaires. However, itscomputerization is now refined to provide an"open-ended" facility, or simple user-friendlyutility for developing country-specific indica-tors and their parameters. This in-built open-ended monitoring system allows the "core" in-dicators to remain unchanged whilst simulta-neously facilitating the inclusion, on a demandbasis, of specific indicators identified at re-gional, sub-regional, country, sub-national andcommunity levels. It is thus foreseen that theexpansion of monitoring systems beyond the"core" indicators can be facilitated at all levels.

Strengthening Country-levelCapacities for Sector Monitoring

Currently, several countries are beingsupported in their efforts to strengthen andenhance country-level monitoring. Measuresinclude organizing regional monitoringworkshops; facilitating interministerialmeetings to strengthen sector coordination;setting up national monitoring units (NMUs);assessing and analysing the sector status;setting sector goals, and establishing a frame-work for sector monitoring.

Several countries, including Burundi,Jamaica, Togo and Nigeria have alreadyestablished NMUs and are proceeding withsub-national data collection to facilitate futureplanning. Moreover, the participants of the lastthree Regional Monitoring Workshops (heldin Jamaica, Swaziland and Benin) recom-mended and put forward a set of genericguidelines for sector monitoring at country level(see Annex V).

Data Collection MechanismsAn array of data retrieval systems already

exists that can be utilized at country level.These systems include census, householdsurveys, sentinel sites that comprise fixed sitesfor routine household level data gathering, and

routine reporting through government adminis-tration networks. Ideally governments shouldoptimize such systems for sector data collec-tion rather than create new ones. Consequentlysuch systems should be adjusted for relevanceto the data collection needs of the water andsanitation sector and should be designed torespond to the same relevant questions re-quired by the sector, given that such surveysare conducted at different times, with differentgeographical spreads and possibly withvarying degrees of accuracy.

Harmonizing the different existing datacollection systems would help overcome anenormous hurdle. Moreover, the cost effective-ness of data retrieval would have been greatlyenhanced. Complementary or alternativemonitoring mechanisms should also be consid-ered wherever needed.

Data Processing, Analysisand Reporting

While computerized data aggregation canbe undertaken initially at the central level, re-sponsibility for such data collection should beencouraged and supported at sub-national andcommunity levels to facilitate an upward flowof relevant data to national level. This ap-proach would also apply to data analysis andreporting. Annual reporting would keep policyand decision makers abreast of progress maderegarding targets set for any particular year.The system would also facilitate decision mak-ing on sector funding, generating relevant in-formation, as needed, including more accurateand reliable data as to which areas might be ingreatest need. However, monitoring via (hard-copy) questionnaires will take place until com-puterized systems are established at countrylevel, and will continue to be used at the sub-national level for some time. Nonetheless, ifaffordable, the use of simple computers shouldbe strongly encouraged at sub-national levelsin order to enhance monitoring capacity at thelowest possible tier. Therefore computer pro-grammes should only be considered as tools tosupport monitoring in this context.

External reporting beyond the country,while limited to the "core indicators", wouldfeature in the proposed annual reportingsystem, which would also register otherachievements and activities related to globaland regional promotion of the water andsanitation sector. ®

Annual reporting would

keep policy and decision

makers abreast of

progress made

regarding targets set

for any particular year.


IE. Analysis ofBaseline Year Results

M A P 1

WASAMS-1990

CountriesReported

For a complete list ofcountries, see Table 1,

Representativeness of 1990 Data

Data used in this 1990 global report werederived from material provided by

Governments who participated in theglobal reporting effort, and are indicated inTables 1 and 2.

The baseline year of 1990 was the firsttime in which the Water and SanitationMonitoring System (WASAMS) format wasused by countries in assessing the status oftheir sector. Oí the approximately 130 coun-tries to receive the questionnaire in early 1991,70 countries responded; a return rate of 54%.Many of the others were unable to completethe questionnaires because they had insuffi-cient sector data, a clear indication of the needfor country level support to improve sectormonitoring and information systems. The1990 data are based on the sector status as at31 December 1990. The annual report onsubsequent years will also be based on thesituation as at 31 December of each year.

The ability of countries to complete thedifferent parts of the questionnaire, i.e.,Coverage, Management, and Funding, variedconsiderably. Most countries were able tocomplete the questions on coverage, while

around 75 percent of those reporting wereunable to provide much information on thefunding and management aspects of the sectorat this point in time (Table 3).

For comparability at global level, theanalysis in this report is made according to theUnited Nations (UN) Economic CommissionRegional sub-divisions (Table 2).

Although the majority of reporting coun-tries had least difficulty in completing the firstpart of the questionnaire dealing with cover-age, many were unable to provide disaggre-gated information for urban high-income andmarginal urban populations (Table 4). Thiswas not surprising, given that past monitoringpractices had omitted any breakdown of urbanpopulation into such categories. Initial difficul-ties in defining and quantifying these catego-ries were not unanticipated. The indicativedefinitions proposed by the .IMP for thisbreakdown are:

Urban (High-income) Populations: arepopulations perceived locally to have access toa good standard of dwelling expressed inphysical terms, safe water supply and sanita-tion; and other services such as health andpublic transport.


Marginal Urban Populations: arepopulations that clearly do not fit into theprevious category and who have relativelypoor access to such services.

Similarly, several countries were not ableto provide coverage information broken downby technical categories that could be equatedto different levels of service. This probablyreflected previous monitoring practices, whichonly allowed for reporting of "total" urbanwater supply and sanitation service coveragerather than providing details on the "level ofservice" (Table 5).

Although most countries were unable toprovide data on sector investment in absoluteterms, about 40 percent of reporting countriesdid provide estimates of the proportion ofcapital investment provided by government,external support agencies, communities andothers involved in the sector. A similarproportion of respondents were able to providecomparable information on the operation andmaintenance cost of water supply systems.

Undoubtedly, 1990 was a "watershed" inregard to past monitoring practices. Despitethe incomplete reporting of the data obtainedfor the "baseline year 1990", substantialinsight into previously unchartered territory isnow being opened up for enhanced sectormanagement.

The enormous potential of this new thrust,particularly at country level, has already beenrecognized by nations such as Togo, Nigeria,Philippines, Jamaica and others. Togo, forexample, not only completed the WASAMSquestionnaire for the national level, but wasable to do so for each of its five administra-tive/ political sub-national regions, and hasthus already started to utilize the monitoringsystem as a management tool for improvingsector planning.

Disaggregating sector statistics for urbanhigh- income and marginal urban settings asindicated should help focus attention on theinequities currently prevailing in most cities ofdeveloping countries. This could, in turn,provide the potential elements to improveliving conditions for many millions of mar-ginal urban dwellers in the course of the1990s.

Planners frequently overlook the fact thata major proportion of the financial resourcesfor water and sanitation programmes is to befound in marginal urban settings. One clear

T A B L E 1

Countries Reportingby UN Economic Commission Regions

AfricaLatin America& Caribbean

Asia& Pacific West Asia

AngolaBurkina FasoBurundiC. Afr. RepublicCameroonChadComorosCôte d'IvoireDjiboutiEquatorial GuineaEthiopiaGambiaGhanaGuinea-BissauKenyaMadagascarMaliMauritaniaNigeriaRwandaSenegalSierra LeoneSudanSwazilandTanzaniaTogoTunisiaUganda

BarbadosBelizeBoliviaBrit. Virgin Is.Costa RicaDominicaEcuadorEl SalvadorGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasJamaicaMexicoMon serrâtNicaraguaPanamaParaguayPeruSt. Kitts and NevisTurks & Caicos Is.

AfghanistanBangladeshBhutanBurmaCambodiaChinaIndiaIndonesiaIranLaosMaldivesPakistanPhilippinesKoreaSri LankaThailandVietnam

JordanOmanSyrian Arab Rep.Yemen

T A B L E

Level of Reporting by Regionby UN Economic Commission Regions

Latin America AsiaAfrica & Caribbean & Pacific West Asia

Percentageof CountriesReporting

Percentageof PopulationRepresented

58

ÓÓ

46

37

39

'••• • • • 9 0 • • - v :

• . • • • • • • . • • . • .

33

.:

: ' . : . ' 2 ' • ; ; . ; • • • '


indicator in support of this is the exorbitantproportion of such household incomes cur-rently expended by families for low qualitybasic services in the sector. It is hoped thatplanners and decision makers will make use ofthe JMP funding indicator to identify suchcommunity-level potential for the accelerationof sector coverage.

T A B L E

Reporting by Information Category

Proportion ofQuestionnaires

Completed

Number of Countries Reporting

Coverage Management Funding

0%1 -10%

11 - 20%21 -30%31 -40%41 - 50%51 - 60%01 - 70%71 - 80%81 -90%91 -99%

100%

50341241ó0000

3214ó324001008

T A B L E

Respondents' Ability to Provide Disaggregated Dataon Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage

by Marginal and High-Income Populations

Region Number of Reporting CountriesProviding Urban High-Income/ Providing Urban High-Income/

Marginal Urban Marginal UrbanBreakdown For Water Supply Breakdown For Sanitation

Africa

L. America& Caribbean

Asia & Pacific

West Asia

Total

15

9

8

3

35

15

9

8

3

35

Analysis of 1990 Baseline Data

CoverageThe Need for Increased FocusUpon Marginal Urban Areas

A cursory look at global figures revealsthat, globally, 83 percent of the urban popula-tion of developing countries have access tosafe water supply. However, the JMF' disaggre-gation shows a hidden inequity: the fact thatthere is a 95 percent service coverage rate forthe urban high-income group compared to only64 percent coverage for the marginal urbanpopulation. The same principle can be appliedto sanitation, given that high-income urbanresidents appear to have the same levels ofservice coverage for both water supply andsanitation.

Data disaggregation along these lines couldhelp planners and policy makers better focusresources on the needs of pockets of urbanpopulations whose situation was previouslymasked by the overall coverage statistics. Thistakes on an added urgency given the soaringurban population growth rates predicted for the1990s.

Meeting Basic Needs Through MoreAggressive Promotion and Use ofAppropriate Low-Cost Technologies

The existence of service disparities andinequities are even further substantiated whenthe initial results of the global disaggregationof access to water supply by technology areexamined (Figure 1). Urban high-incomepopulations have close to 80 percent access todomestic connections in comparison to a rateof less than 30 percent access for the combinedmarginal urban and rural populations. Thedisaggregation of coverage into different levelsof service has provided planners with moreobjective information while substantiatingfurther the existence of disparities in resourceallocations.

Generally speaking, the low-cost optionswhich were aggressively promoted during the1980s have yet to be seriously considered as ameans to accelerate sustainable service cover-age. Although boreholes with handpumps, atechnology aggressively pursued during the1DWSSD, constitute the largest single meansof water supply to rural people, some countrieshave access to even less costly options such asprotected springs, rainwater harvesting andgravity flow systems.


In the case of sanitation, a large range oftechnologies is being used to provide servicesto urban high-income populations (Figure 2).The claim that small-bore sewer technologyhas been applied in the urban high-incomeareas to a significant extent needs scrutiny,given some possible difficulty in this particu-lar case with terminology. The definitionadopted by the JMP, for example, definessmall-bore sewers as follows:

"Normally of 4 to 6 inches in diameter andburied at shallow depths (less than I metre)below the surface. Such systems are usuallydesigned for low-income populations inunplanned settlements where the population

density usually exceeds 200 persons perhectare."

JMP statistics indicate that householdconnections to septic systems are used almostas frequently by urban marginal populations asare simple pit latrines. This is surprisingconsidering the much higher cost of septicsystems in comparison to small-bore sewers.However, the driving force behind such adecision for the individual householders maybe their ability to manage the system, ratherthan the cost.

In rural areas, simple pit latrines are almost13 times more common than VIP latrines de-spite aggressive advocacy and promotion of

Safe WaferSupply

Total population withaccess to functioningsafe water supply.

Source: WASAMS - 1990

Legend

Not Reported

0% to 25%

26% to 50%

5 1 % to 75%

76% to 100%

Sanitation

Total population withaccess to adequateexcreta disposal.


Legend

Not Reported

0% to 25%

26% to 50%

5 1 % to 75%

76% to 100%

For Maps 1 and 2, as there is no standard regional or global definition for coverage, this varies from country to country.


Initial analysis of the

1990 baseline data

available reveals that

Governments are

subsidizing high-income

populations by as

much as 70 percent

of O&M costs.

the latter during the 1980s. Although the VTPoffers a higher level service, its higher pricemay not be affordable to the unserved major-ity. Two possible solutions can be envisagedto accelerate adequate sanitation service cov-erage in rural areas, namely, reduction of VIPlatrine costs, through a more aggressive use oflocal construction techniques and materials,and/or upgrading the simple pit latrine togreatly reduce odour and fly nuisance.

Again, analysis of JMP 1990 data showsenormous disparities in service coverage,which may indicate, among other things, inad-equate policies on cost recovery which have

Respondents' Ability to Provide a Breakdownof Service Coverage by Different Technologies

Region

Africa

L, America& Caribbean

Asia & Pacific

West Asia

Total

Number of Reporting CountriesProviding Service Coverage Providing Service

Breakdown by Different Coverage Breakdown byTechnologies for Water Different Technologies for

Supply Sanitation

22

16

14

3

55

25

16

12

2

55

T A B L E

Global Access to Water and Sanitation

Percentage of Population with Accessto Safe Water and Adequate Sanitation

Sub-Sectors

Urban

Marginal Urban

Urban Total

Rural Total

Water SupplyWHO Í990'11

82

63

JMP1990

95

64

83

67

SanitationWHO 1990

72

49

JMP1990

9545

65

22<2)

(1) Refers to fhe "Decade Monitoring Report" by WHO, where 1988 sector data wereextrapolated t& 1990: : • ". . •'• • • • • • • • • • • • . . : ?

(2) Refers to the large discrepancy in relation to the earlier WHO extrapolations for 1990is most probably due to the absence of JMP rural data from China.

led to large capital outlays for rehabilitation ofhigh-cost systems, mostly to benefit the better-off.

Service implementation rates would have tobe accelerated by between 1.5 to 4 times thelevels of the past decade if "universal access"is to be attained in the foreseeable future.Clearly an alternative approach is urgently re-quired.

Such an approach would necessitate policychanges in favour of realistic cost recovery,especially for the high-cost/high level services.Subsequently, a significant proportion of thecapital generated through such means shouldbe redirected towards the sustainable accelera-tion of service coverage to the unserved.

ManagementCommunity Contribution to Operationand Maintenance Costs

The importance of sustainability becamemore and more apparent as the 1980s moved toa close. Reflecting this new-found emphasis,the JMP adopted a proxy indicator for commu-nity involvement in management of services.This indicator specifically attempts to highlightcommunity contribution to operation andmaintenance (O&M) costs.

Initial analysis of the 1990 baseline dataavailable, on this indicator, reveals that Gov-ernments are subsidizing urban high-incomepopulations by as much as 70 percent of O&Mcosts. Meanwhile, in marginal urban and ruralcommunities, Governments are contributing al-most up to 40 percent of the total O&M costsfor a lower level of service, i.e. half as much asfor their wealthier neighbours (Figure 3).

The lessons of the 1980s indicated a strongcorrelation between sustainability of servicesand cost recovery and suggest that the latterbecomes more effective as responsibility isdevolved to the communities. The sustain-ability of conventional high-cost urban systemswhich largely benefit the more affluent popula-tions therefore comes into question, given thehigh level of government subsidies allocated tothe better-off in urban areas who should beable to afford such basic services.

FundingInvestments in the Sector

The sector information provided by govern-ments for 1990 indicates that Governmentsconcentrate their water supply investments in


urban areas in new systems and in the rehabili-tation of existing systems. There also seems tobe a special bias favouring new high-costsystems. External Support Agencies (ESAs)almost match investments by Governments inurban areas. However, there is evidence thatESAs attempt to compensate to some extent,at least for this bias, by also supportingprogrammes in rural areas (Figure 4).

Although communities do not contributesignificantly to capital investments for watersupply, marginal urban and rural populationscontribute proportionally more than do theirmore affluent urban neighbours. Indicationsare that investments by "other" actors, pre-sumably the private sector, etc., tend to favoururban dwellers more than rural populations.

Percentage

1009080706050403020100

For sanitation, Government and ESA capi-tal investments, alike, also favour more afflu-ent urban populations (Figure 5). Conversely,marginal urban and rural communities appearto contribute a higher proportion of capital in-vestments than do Governments for new andrehabilitated systems. As in the case of watersupply, members of the more affluent urbangroup seem to be contributing proportionallyless than their poorer neighbours.

Given the proportionally higher contribu-tion by marginal urban and rural populations,it is not unreasonable to deduce that thedemand for sanitation among these groups,particularly the latter, may possibly be higherthan previously assumed.

::

ItIt: PL nI

| Urban

F̂ j Marginal Urban

HI Rural

mm

i

Percentage

1009080706050403020100

:::

:

:::

Jm — m ^

• Urban[""I Marginal Urban

H Rural

P

ml[••:-

1

Jm

L•& jr s

Indications are that

contributions by

"other" actors,

presumably the private

sector, etc., tend to

favour urban dwellers

more than rural

populations.

F I G U R E

Water Supply

Proportion ofpopulation served bytechnology types.

Source: JMP - 1990

F I G U R E

Sanitation

Proportion ofpopulation served bytechnology types.

Source: JMP-1990


Water Supply

Contribution toOperation &Maintenance Costs.

Source: J M P - 1 9 9 0

Water Supply

Contribution to capitalinvestments.

Source: JMP - 1990

Sanitation

Proportionalcontribution to capitalinvestments.

Source: J M P - 1 9 9 0

Percentage

100

Urban

Marginal Urban

Rural

Government ESAs Communities Others

Percentage

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

:

::

-:

-

~- unüJP

il Um

1• Urban

HI Marginal Urban

0 Rural

ral it—

s.

Gov. Gov. ESAs ESAsNew Sys. Rehab. New Sys. Rehab.

Gov. New Sys.Gov. Rehab.

ESAs New Sys.ESAs Rehab.

New systems funded by GovernmentRehabilitation of existing systemsby GovernmentNew systems funded by ESAsRehabilitation of existing systemsfunded by ESAs

Comm. Comm. Other OtherNew Sys. Rehab. New Sys. Rehab.

C o m m . N e w Sys. New systems funded by communitiesComm, Rehab.

Other New Sys.Other Rehab.

Rehabilitation of existing systemsfunded by communitiesNew systems funded by othersRehabilitation of existing systemsfunded by others

Percentage

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0uIfftj— •

1i

r

1H11•

•

!• Urban

Q MarginH Rural

at Urban

LGov. Gov. ESAs ESAs Comm. Comm. Other Other

New Sys. Rehab. New Sys. Rehab. New Sys. Rehab. New Sys. Rehab.Gov. New Sys.Gov. Rehab.

ESAs New Sys.ESAs Rehab.

New systems funded by GovernmentRehabilitation of existing systemsby GovernmentNew systems funded by ESAsRehabilitation of existing systemsfunded by ESAs

C o m m . N e w Sys. New systems funded by communitiesC o m m . Rehab . Rehabilitation of existing systems

funded by communitiesOther N e w Sys. New systems funded by othersOther Rehab . Rehabilitation of existing systems

funded by others


A Hidden MessageThere appears to be a hidden message in

the aforementioned sections on managementfunding. The large capital expenditures forrehabilitation of conventional high-cost urbanschemes are obviously related to the rapiddeterioration of such infrastructures. Thisapparent lack of sustainability may be linkedto inadequate cost recovery for operation andmaintenance (see Box 2).

Despile this, governments seem to persistin heavily subsidizing the better-off popula-tion who can afford operation and main-tenance cost of basic services. This inequitableallocation of limited resources constrains theexpansion of services to the unserved poor(see Box 3, this page, and Box 5, page 24).

Inadéquate Cost Recoveryfor Water Supply

A recent review of World Bank-financedprojects showed that the effective pricecharged for water is only about 35 percent ofthe average cost of supplying it. The propor-tion of total project financing generated byutilities points in the same direction: Internalcash generation accounts for only 8 percent ofproject cost in Asia, 9 percent in Sub-SaharanAfrica, 21 percent in Latin America and theCaribbean, and 35 percent in the Middle Eastand North Africa.

WoHd Development Report 1992,The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Financial Resource Allocationis a Function of Political Will

The (UNDP) 1991 Human Development Reportsets out a framework for restructuring nationalpublic expenditures and international aid allo-cations to ensure the resources needed to un-derpin human development strategy in the1990s. This analysis shows that in many coun-tries at present, only a small proportion ofGDP (gross domestic product), on averagebarely 2 percent, is directed to priority humanexpenditure. The same ¡s true of the aid bud-gets of most donor countries, on average only8 percent of total aid. Put differently, theamount of restructuring to generate the re-sources required for meeting priority humangoals is usually not large.

Richard Jolly, UNICEF New Yorkand Rolph van der Hoeven, ILO, Geneva

Analysis by Geographic Sub-groupingsThe potential national and sub-national

application of WASAMS as a tool to deriveinformation on geographic or other sub-groupings is illustrated in the following briefanalysis which is based on the UN RegionalEconomic Commission global sub-divisions.

Figure 6, which represents data on globalwater supply coverage by region, shows anarray of technologies used. Similarities existbetween Latin America and the Caribbean andWest Asia, regarding provision of water supplythrough household connections. There is also asimilarity between Africa, Asia and the Pacificregarding the same technology.

Water supply for rural populations bymeans of standpipes follows a similar pattern,with approximately 20 percent of the popula-tion being served in Latin America and the Car-ibbean, and West Asia, while about 10 percentis similarly served in Africa, Asia and the Pacific.

Rainwater harvesting appears to beunderutilized on a global basis as a means ofgaining access to improved water supply.However, many countries (especially in Asiaand the Pacific) are actively pursuing thismethod of supplementing their domestic watersupplies. Many countries could potentially gainfrom such an approach.

As indicated in Figure 7, there is a greatervariation in sanitation service coverage bytechnologies between regions than is the casewith water supply. For example, pour flushlatrine technology is practically limited to thesingle region of Asia and the Pacific. The useof simple pit latrines follows a similar patternin Latin America and the Caribbean, as inAfrica. However, 14 percent of Africa's urbanhigh-income population use this technology,compared to its non-use by the equivalentgroup in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Other unspecified technologies for sanita-tion appear to be commonly used in Asia andthe Pacific Region, and to a lesser extent inAfrica as well. It is hoped that through the useof the mapping feature of WASAMS (atnational and sub-national levels) the specificsector needs and the inequities may be high-lighted. This information, if effectively usedand brought to the attention of policy anddecision makers, could lead to the restructuringof resources to minimize disparities andaccelerate sector coverage. ©

Rainwater harvesting

appears to be

underutilized on a

global basis as a means

of gaining access to

improved water supply.


Figure 6: Water Supply Coverage by Region

F I G U R E 6 . 1

Water SupplyCoverage byRegion

Latin America &Caribbean

Technology Types Used

Source: JMP - 1990

F I G U R E 6 . 2


Africa


Source: JMP-1990

Percentage

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 i

t—

1rA .

• Urban| | ] Marginal Urban

M Rural

ffll

Percentage

10090807060

40302010

0

- im• E M

rWB

d 1|M|

• Urban

H] Marginal Urban

^ Rural

-

•


Percentage

1009080706050403020100

:

::

:1

1 U1 mi

....

• Urban

HI Marginal Urban

• Rural

f

•s.

b.

Percentage1009080706050403020100

- HnH f

• UrbanQ Marginal Urban

• Rural

l1

Ltf

F I G U R E 6 . 3


West Asia


Source: JMP-1990

F I G U R E 6 . 4


Asia & Pacific


Source: JMP-1990


Figure 7: Sanitation Service Coverage by Region

SanitationService Coverageby Region

Latin America &Caribbean


Source: JMP - 1990

F I G U R E 7 . 2


Africa


Source: JMP - 1990

Percentage

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

- ^

- I ! Í-

• Urban

HI Marginal Urban

B Rural 1s,

J?

Percentage

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

-

-

—

1 j

• Urban[ J Marginal Urban

• Rural

1 1 L

má41—Wsjm—

y¡M Lc/


Percentage

1009080706050403020100

m ti|U

jp1 1

[

n

mr

• UrbanH] Marginal Urban

1 Rural

Percentage1009080706050403020100 r«i-

• Urban|~| Marginal Urban

^ | Rural

jt_ Is


West Asia


Source: JMP - 1990

F I G U R E 7 . 4


Asia & Pacific


Source: JMP - 1990


LV: Framework forImproved Sector PlanningEnhanced sector

monitoring can pave

the way for improved

sector planning.

Linkage Between Sector Monitoring,Planning and Advocacy

Tl he first section of this report provided ageneral overview of the water and sanita-tion sector from the 1970s through the

1980s (IDWSSD), while also outlining thepolitical framework for sector development inthe 1990s. Section II discussed the need for animproved, simple sector monitoring systemwith a high degree of flexibility at countrylevel for specific monitoring requirementsusing the "open-ended" system. It highlightsthe urgent need to strengthen sector capacity atcountry level. Section III provided an analysisof the sector derived from the 1990 baselinedata submitted. This analysis forms thebenchmark for monitoring sector performanceduring the 1990s.

In response to the critical need to improvesector management through enhanced monitor-ing Section IV provides a framework for sectorprofessionals, policy makers, donors and deci-sion makers at all levels to monitor progressregarding achieving their sector goal of "uni-versal access" at the earliest possible date.

Enhanced sector monitoring can pave theway for improved sector planning. It can alsoprovide the basis for authoritative publicinformation and advocacy campaigns. A keyingredient is the catalytic relationship betweensector monitoring and planning: The formernormally feeds into the latter, which can inturn be adjusted as goals and annual targetsundergo changes. However, planning can alsofeed back into monitoring. Monitoring feed-back can also be used to "prime" publicinformation channels and advocacy initiativesdirected towards policy and decision makers.Additionally, it contributes to the information,education and communication (IEC) processwhich explores all available communicationchannels and strategies to disseminate relevantinformation. This ultimately generates mo-mentum towards the attainment of objectives(Figure 8).

In order to be effective, IEC has to gener-ate political will which, in turn, must be

translated into actions, including the revisionof sector policies, the provision of additionalresources and the promotion of active commu-nity participation.

For sector planning to be effective, itshould reflect the following three proceduresin a cyclical manner:

i. Assessment of the current sector situation;

ii. Analysis of the constraints affecting sectoracceleration and the identification of poten-tial ways to overcome these limitations;

iii. Action in response to the foregoing assess-ment and analysis.

Framework for Monitoringin the Context of Goal Setting

The gap between the current access rate (orbaseline service coverage) and the ultimate ob-jective of "universal access" is very large inmany countries. Planning can only be of assis-tance to sector management if the goals are re-alistic and have some chance of being met. Aselected sector goal for the 1990s could beplaced anywhere between the "business asusual" of the 1980s and "universal access" bythe year 2000, assuming that the lowest end ofthe scale corresponds to a linear projection ofthe 1980s implementation rate, while the high-est equates to the World Summit for Childrengoals of "universal access" (Figure 9).

Within the above context, a sector planningframework comprising seven steps is pro-posed. In the absence of reliable baseline data,a conservative estimate should be made. Also,it should be kept in mind that it is very diffi-cult to verify progress if initial estimated dataon coverage is too optimistic. It is also advis-able to agree upon the population denominatorfor the various sub-national levels, otherwisethere may be errors in the estimation of theunserved/served population.

Meeting The ChallengeA much greater syncrgism in terms of

linkage between sector monitoring, planning


and advocacy is paramount to meeting thechallenge of "universal access" to water andsanitation in the shortest possible time. Thereí erred-to conceptual framework aims to helpsector professionals, policy makers, decisionmakers and donors achieve this goal.

Step One: Situation Analysis.This should include the following:

• estimates of current water supply and sani-tation coverage (the baseline);

• assessment of sector investments duringthe 1980s with an estimate of the propor-tion oí funds spent on high-cost, intermedi-ate-cost, and low-cost technologies (seeAnnex III);

• review of past and current sector policies;

• assessment of current sector strategies in-cluding the potential of "community par-ticipation" in decision making, planningand management, and willingness to payfor and sustain services, etc.;

ü rough assessment of the feasibility ofreaching "universal access" in terms of thecurrent resource base (funding, human re-sources, implementation capacity etc.) andcurrent approaches by the year 2000.

Outcome: Clear assessment of the Water andSanitation Sector, with a view as to whetheror not the current resource base is sufficientto achieve "universal access "by the year 2000,following the ''business as usual" approach.

If "universal access" can be achievedthrough the "business as usual" approach,then proceed to Step Four. If not, proceed toStep Two.

Step Two: Estimate the Maximum ServiceCoverage Which can be Attained ThroughOptimal Use of the Available Resource Baseand Appropriate Strategies, and Indicate theResource Gap yet to be Bridged, to Achieve"Universal Access" by the Year 2000.

• On the basis of 1980s strategies and costsfor high, intermediate and low-cost tech-nologies (Step One), estimate the maxi-mum coverage which can be attainedthrough restructuring of resources infavour of the unscrved, through the opti-mal mix of technologies bearing in mindpolitical acceptability and sustainability.

• Determine the additional resources required(financial, human etc.) to bridge the gap be-tween the goals attainable through optimaluse of available resources, and the "univer-sal access" goal of the year 2000.

Outcome: Outline for optimal use of avail-able resource base, and estimate of additionalresources required, if any, to achieve "univer-sal access".

If "universal access" can be achieved viathis "optimal use of available resource baseand appropriate strategies", then proceed toStep Four. If not, proceed to Step Three.

Step Three: Explore the Restructuring ofMacro-economic and Sector Policies toIncrease the Resource Base.

This entails a simulation of various policiesto determine their potential to generate suffi-cient resources to bridge or minimize the gapbetween the goals attainable through optimaluse of available resources, and the goal of"universal access" (Step Two), again bearingin mind their political acceptability andsustainability. This may include:

• equitable tariffs for cost recovery/sharing;

• increased sector investment, includingcommunity contributions, external re-sources, etc.;

• optimal use of, and support to, the privatesector (manufacture, implementation, etc.);

Estimate the maximum

coverage which can be

attained through

restructuring of

resources in favour of

the unserved...

F I G U R E

Conceptual FrameworkLinking Monitoring Planning and Advocacy

Policy & Decision Makersana the General Public

Information,Education &

Communication

/ \Community gr\ PolicyParticipation M/T~\ Changes

ResourcesMobilization

Sector Plans ofAction (NPAs)

SectorMonitoring

NPAs: National Plans of Action

Source: UNICEF/Water & Environmental Sanitation Section, June 1992


F I G U R E 9

A Framework for Goal Setting

UA

TowardsUniversalAccess

BU

1980 1990 2000E3 Sanitation % Water @ Population

UNICEF/Water and Environmental Sanitation Section, New York, July 1992

HI reduction in duties and taxes on specificequipment and materials for intermediate-and low-cost options;

• devolution of authority and responsibilitiesto local communities to enhancesustai nabi I ity.

Outcome: Optimal policy package to bridgeor minimize the gap.

Step Four: Selection of Strategies to Opti-mize the Use of the Resource Base.

Once the resource base is established,different choices of resource utilization maybe made. The technology options vary on thebasis of the proportion of resources beingallocated to appropriate low-cost and interme-diate-cost technologies. They range fromcurrent resource allocations of approximately20 percent being allocated to low-cost andintermediate-cost technologies, to the maxi-mum possible proportion of resources thatmay be reallocated to these technologies,based on policy decisions.

The underlying principle is that the greaterthe shift towards low-cost and intermediate-cost technologies, the greater the potential toachieve "universal access" or to minimize thegap between needs and resources.

Once the policy decision is made on roughlywhat proportion of resources should be allo-cated to each of these technology/strategycategories, (i.e. high-, intermediate- and low-cost) resources can be prorated accordingly.

The strategies should go beyond the tech-nology options to include the social aspects,that is, the type/level of community participa-tion required to provide sustainability to theentire approach.

Outcome: Optimal mix of technologies formaximum acceleration of sustainable coverage.

Step Five: Establishing of Sector Goals.At this point realistic sector goals can be

established. Specifically this should be under-taken for: 1 ) water supply and 2) sanitationcoverage in a) urban, b) marginal urban, and c)rural areas, with a total of six sector goals in all.

At this early stage in the 1990s, il may bedifficult to realistically determine the accessgoal for the year 2000. However a mid-decadegoal can be determined more readily, with a"guesstimate" only for the end-decade goal.

Outcome: Realistic Sector Goals.

Step Six: Establishing a Planning Framework.At this juncture it is possible to make a

breakdown of the six sector goals into annualtargets. This becomes the planning frameworkagainst which progress can be monitored. Ifchanges occur in policies, the resource baseand/or the goals, this framework has the flex-ibility to adapt to such changes. It thus becomesa "live" planning tool unlike the rigid "masterplans" of the past.

Outcome: Pragmatic planning/monitoringframework.

Step Seven: Optimal use of Monitoring Data,Finally, these data should be used for sector

advocacy purposes, feedback to communitiesand sub-national levels for improved decision-making, planning, resource mobilization and itsequitable allocation, and management.

Outcome: Mobilization of resources andstrengthening of decision-making, planningand management at all levels. ©


Summary of

Strategies for Sector Monitoring in the 1990s

• Meetings attended by water and sanitationsector professionals from Governments,ESAs, and others, resulted in "three coreindicators" for enhancing sector monitoringin the 1990s.

• A country-based and country-managedmonitoring system was developed, which isboth manual and computerised, andpossesses an open-ended facility to permitcountries to utilize additional indicators asrequired.

» For the first time a disaggregation of waterand sanitation coverage into urban andmarginal urban was used. Likewise, alarger range of levels of service (technologytypes) has been monitored.

• Current measures being used to strengthencountry-level capacity for sector monitoringinclude regional workshops; country-levelinter-ministerial meetings; establishingnational monitoring units; setting of realisticgoals, and developing effective frameworksfor guiding sector monitoring.

• Governments are being urged, through theJMP, to build upon and optimize existingdata collection systems.

Salient Points

Outcome of Global Monitoring 1990

m Baseline year 1990 was the first time inwhich the WASAMS format was used bycountries to assess the status of their sector.

• Disaggregated data on urban populationconfirmed that a considerable disparity existsin access to services between urban andmarginal urban populations.

it Low-cost options are yet to be seriouslyconsidered by Governments and ESAs.

• There is broad-based evidence thatinadequate policies exist on cost recovery,especially for high-cost systems.

m Governments tend to concentrate sectorinvestments in new and rehabilitated systemsfor (high-income) urban populations, with aclear bias towards high-cost systems.

• Water services to high-income populationsare generally being subsidised by as muchas 70 percent of the O&M cost.

m An alternative approach to efficiently utilizescarce resources is urgently needed. Thisnecessitates policy changes in favour ofrealistic cost recovery and cost sharingmeasures at all levels, including areas ofhigh-cost/high level services.

m A strong synergistic linkage between sectormonitoring, planning and advocacy hasbeen recognized as the basis to acceleratewater and sanitation coverage in the 1990s.

m Planning (and monitoring as a managementtool) can only be of assistance if goals arerealistic. A sector planning framework istherefore needed to enhonce the planningprocess.


V: ConclusionTo continue "business

as usual", despite the

laudable efforts of the

past decade, would

result in a widening

of the gap between

the served and

the unserved, especially

in urban areas.

Due to inadequate advocacy and promo-tion of the sector in the past, the

unserved population continues to grow.Therefore to reach "universal access", advo-cacy will have to be aggressively pursued to at-tract a larger share of national and external re-sources to the sector in future. Effective sectormonitoring can play a vital role in advocacy byproviding updated relevant information. Moni-toring is also crucial in facilitating effectiveand more equitable use of resources to achieve"universal access". Moreover, a strong syner-gistic linkage between Sector Monitoring,Planning, and Advocacy has been recognizedas the basis to accelerate water and sanitationservice coverage in the 1990s. Enhanced sectormonitoring can thus pave the way for improvedsector planning and management.

To continue "business as usual", despite thelaudable efforts of the past decade, would

Willingness versus Ability to Pay

Households' willingness to pay for improvedservice ishigh butnot high enough to pay thefull costs of an improved service. This grouptypically includes poor communities in aridareas in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.Village people are willing to pay a relativelylarge share of their income for improved wa-ter service. The distinction is that the costs ofsupply are so high, as a result of a combina-tion of aridity and low population densities,that improved systems will not be built and op-erated without subsidies. Given the high prior-ity that people give to improved water supply,if transfers were available from central gov-ernment or from foreign donors, householdswould typically choose to spend the funds onan improved water supply. The primary ser-vice offered in such communities would bepublic taps, wells, or boreholes, although inpiped systems metered yard taps should be al-lowed, with tariffs set to recover full costs.

World Development Report 1992,^ : : ;: The World Bank, Washington, D.C

result in a widening of the gap between theserved and the unserved, especially in urbanareas. Moreover, the current global recessionbeing experienced, leaves little hope for amajor increase in the absolute level of fundingfor sector development in the near future. Animmediate solution to substantially accelerateservice coverage is therefore to better utilizeexisting resources. This can be achievedthrough macro-economic restructuring ofgovernment budgets to underpin humandevelopment initiatives, as well as restructur-ing of sector budgets in favour of low-cost,community managed technologies andapproaches, with a focus on the unserved ruraland marginal urban areas. It is paramount thatgovernments and ESAs see resource alloca-tions to the sector in the context of economicinvestments for development, rather thansocial expenditures (see Box 6).

Governments and external support agen-cies involved in the water and sanitationsector have a fundamental choice: to continue"business as usual", with essentially a lowpriority for the unserved poor, or to shift thefocus to facilitating the provision of servicesto that silent majority. By opting for the latter,one will substantially contribute to shaping abetter future and more just social order indeveloping countries and, at the same time,establish the foundation for a more rapidhuman development and a more equitablesociety. ©

B O X

The Economic Cost of NotProviding Water and Sanitation

In just the first ten weeks of the cholera epi-demic in Peru, losses from reduced agriculturalexports and tourism were estimated at $1 bil-lion — more than three times the amount thatthe country had invested in water supply andsanitation services during the 1980s.

Source: World Development Report 1992,The World Bank, Washington, DC.


Annex IParticipants of Workshopswho Contributed to the JMP Effort

Geneva Pre-Test Workshop: 2-5 April, 1991Institution Name Region Country

Government

WHO

UNDP/W. Bank

UNICEF

1. Tesfaye Gemechu2. Samira Nicola Rezk3. Ativon Kodjo4. A. N. Asthana5. Vernon Barrett

1. Mihail Koussitassev2. K. Khosh - Chasm3. Mohal Lai Gupta4. Raymond Reid5. Kassa Kinde6. Skouloum Aye Marfa7. Homero Serrano Silva8. Dennis Warner9. Gregor Watters10. Anthony Thomas11. Ivan Mazuranic12. Ingvar Ahman

8. G. Schultzberg

1. Rupert Talbot2. Magdi Zaki3. David Delienne4. Raúl Niño5. Pradeep Kumar6. David Williams7. Joseph Christmas8. Carel de Rooy9. Brendan Doyle

EASROMENAWCAROROSATACRO

AFROEMROSEAROPAHOAFROAFROPAHOHQsHQsHQsHQsHQs

RWSG/EA

ESAROMENAWCAROTACROROSCAEAPROHQsHQsHQs

EthiopiaEgyptTogoIndiaJamaica

CongoEgyptIndiaUSAEthiopiaTogoJamaicaSwitzerlandSwitzerlandSwitzerlandSwitzerlandSwitzerland

Kenya

EthiopiaEgyptTogoGuatemalaIndiaIndonesiaUSAUSAUSA


Guatemala Sub-Regional (Latin America) Monitoring Workshop:2-5 December, T 991Institution

Government

PAHO

WHO

UNICEF

Name

1. Hugo Raúl Garnero2. Paulo F. Teixeira3. Pedro Reyes4. Jorge Bravo5. Carlos R. Calderón6. Francisco Rivera Diaz7. Leonardo González8. Manuel Antonio Merlos9. Armando Mira10. Eric Alvarado11. Edith Marul12. Luis Roberto Escoto13. Emilio Velazquez Uribe14. Flor de M. B. Cruz15. Manuel Barrón16. Ámbar de Pinzón17. Angel Chavez18. Angel Castillo

1. Julio Burbano2. Luis Carlos Rangel3. Ricardo Núñez4. Luis Alberto Leal5. Iván Estrubi6. Norman Jirón7. Luis F. Peñaranda8. Alberto Sylvester

1. Gregor Waiters2. Ivan Mazuranic3. Ingvar Ahman

1. Willy Bezold2. Fabio Sabatini3. Bernt Aasen4. José A. Zuleta5. Jorge M. Molina6. Hans Spruijt7. Matías Núñez8. Sara Menéndez9. Mario Sorto10. Herbert Schembri11. Angela Céspedes12. Hatsune Hatanaka13. PerEngebak14. Heraan Jaramillo15. Terry Delrue16. Carel de Rooy17. Brendan Doy le

Region

TACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACRO

TACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACRO

HQsHQsHQs

TACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROTACROHQsHQs

Country

ArgentinaBrazilChileCosta RicaColombiaCubaEcuadorEl SalvadorGuatemalaGuatemalaGuatemalaHondurasMexicoNicaraguaPeruPanamaParaguayVenezuela

PeruMexicoEl SalvadorR.DominicaiCosta RicaNicaraguaBoliviaCEPIS/Peru

SwitzerlandSwitzerlandSwitzerland

ColombiaColombiaHondurasBoliviaGuatemalaGuatemalaMexicoR.Dominica]El SalvadorPeruEcuadorCosta RicaGuatemalaGuatemalaGuatemalaUSAUSA


OtherCAPREGTZANDESAPACARHCARE

1. Marco Rodriguez2. Yesenia Calderón3. Fernando Ponce de León4. Estilito Loria5. Ravey Smith

R.DominicanaCosta RicaBoliviaBelizeBelize

Jamaica Sub-Regional (Caribbean) Monitoring Workshop:2-6 March, 1992Institution Name Country

Government

WHO/PAHO

• • . ' • . .

UNICEF

1. Hastin Barnes2. Cathal Healy-Singh3. Barnabas Abraham4. David Lewis5. Rajendra Rampcrsaud6. Vernon Barrett7. Barrington Harvey8. Bernard G. Williams9. Errol Rawlins10. Adrienne dcHav. Etienne11. Ricardo Ward12. Trevor Howe13. Swammy D. Ramjiawan14. Hudadar Seelal15. Leroy Adams16. Colin Young

1. Ton Vlugman2. Emmanuel K. Mollel3. Guy Felix4. Terrence Thompson5. Raymond Reid6. Gregor Watters7. Ivan Mazuranic

1. AshokDhital2. Fabio Sabatini3. Karan Singh4. Pierre Adam5. JackGershon6. Joseph Christmas7. Carel de Rooy8. Margaret Karp9. Brendan Doyle

AntiguaBarbadosDominicaGrenadaGuyanaJamaicaJamaicaJamaica,St. KittsSt. LuciaSt. LuciaMontserratSurinameTrin. & Tob.Turks & Caic.St.Vin./Grenad.

BarbadosBarbadosGuyanaTrinidad & TobagoUSASwitzerlandSwitzerland

BarbadosColombiaGuyanaHaitiJamaicaUSAUSAUSAUSA


Swaziland Sub-Regional (East And Southern Africa)Monitoring Workshop: 18-22 May, 1992Institution Name Country

Government

WHO

UNDP/WB

UNICEF

1. Antonio Quaresma2. Tlamelo M. Kedikilwe3. Meles se Endalamaw4, Momodon S. Ceesay5. A.M. Makokha6. Katleho Lesaoana7. Rob Katundu8. Leo Stolk9. Obioha Agada10. Napoleon M. Ntezinde11. Edith Mbatha12. Moses Kagim Gava13. Fred Sichiiongo

1. FredD. Maitan2. Ivan Mazuranic3. Gregor Walters

1, Nick Greenacre

1. Bhai Raj Sakya2. Nuno Egidio3. Tekka Cebra4. Luc Henskens5. Emmanuel Bawa6. S. Makondiege7. Marínete M. Ramaili8. Thowai Sha Zai9. K. Gibbs10. Chandra Bedloe11. Lloyd Donaldson12. Amiin Felipe13. Hezekiel Shongwe14. T.V. Luong15. Dauda Wurie16. Grace Ekudu17. Richard Lupenga18. Joseph Christmas19. Carel de Rooy20. Margaret Karp21. Brendan Doyle

AngolaBotswanaEthiopiaGambiaKenyaLesothoMalawiMozambiqueNigeriaSwazilandTanzaniaUgandaZambia

SwazilandSwitzerlandSwitzerland

Lesotho

AngolaCape VerdeEthiopiaGambiaGhanaKenyaLesothoLiberiaMozambiqueNamibiaNigeriaS. Tome/PrincipeSwazilandTanzaniaTanzaniaUgandaZambiaUSAUSAUSAUSA


Annex!!Milestones andAchievements of the JMPPeriod

Sep.'89

hn.'9O

Jul.'9O

• Jul/90

Nov.'90

Dec/90throughMar.'91

Apr/91

Sep.'91

Dec/91

Mar/92

May'92

Sep."92

Activity

Collaborative Council Meeting,Sophia Antipolis

Participatory Sector Monitoring Workshop

Final selection of core indicators

Sharing of hardcopy questionnairewith selected field offices

Protocol on JMP agreed to by WHO andUNICEF

Development of preliminary versionof WASAMS computer programme

Pre-test Workshop: 27 professionals fromseven countries plus WHO/UNICEF

Sub-regional preparatory meeting inGuatemala

Sub-regional Workshop on Monitoringfor Latin America (Guatemala)

Sub-regional Workshop on Monitoringfor The Caribbean (Jamaica)

. . . • . • • • • • • . . .

Sub-regional Workshop on Monitoring forEast and Southern Africa (Swaziland)

Sub-regional Workshop on Monitoring forCentral and Western Africa (Benin)

Outcome

Need for improved sector monitoring in the1990s was highlighted

Inclusion of core-indicator on communityinvolvement

Three core indicators for sector monitoringin 1990s

Feedback with refinement of definitions,terminologies and structure

Protocol signed

Computer programme for discussionat a Pre-test Workshop

Consensus on indicators, definitions, designand terminology of WASAMS computerprogramme

Improved interagency coordination forRegional Monitoring Workshops

Consensus among Latin American Countriesto enhance sector monitoring in the 1990s.

Consensus among Caribbean Countries toenhance sector monitoring in the 1990s.Preliminary proposal to develop a "WaterQuality Module" for the sub-region.

Consensus among East and SouthernAfrican Countries to enhance sectormonitoring in the 1990s.

Consensus among West and Central AfricanCountries to enhance sector monitoring in the1990s.


AnnexinIndicative Technology Categoriesand Their Respective Costs

Technology Category Cost/Capita (US$)

High-Cost (Conventional) Technology

Urban Water Supply

Urban Sanitation

Intermediate-Cost Technology

Marginal Urban Water Supply

Marginal Urban Sanitation

Low-Cost Technology

'Rural Wafer Supply

Rural Sanitation

200

350

100

25

30

20

High-Cost (Conventional) Technology: applies to the conventional urban-type system withelaborate pumping stations, water and/or sewerage treatment plants, complete distribution systemsand individual household connections for both water supply and sewage.

Intermediate-Cost Technology: applicable to marginal urban areas essentially, comprisespipeborne water supply (no allowance for elaborate treatment) leading to public standposts, and "onsite" sanitation including technologies such as pour-flush and ventilated improved pit latrines.

Low-Cost Technology: targeted to rural areas essentially, includes handpump-equippedboreholes or handdug wells, rainwater harvesting systems and pipeborne gravity systems with publicstandposts, for water supply. Sanitation technologies are the same as those allocated to the"intermediate-cost technology" category with a slight cost reduction allowing for the use of locallyavailable construction materials for the building of latrine superstructures.

1990 per capita cost estimates by UNDP/World Bank (for urbgri and marginal urban areas) and UNICEF (for rural areas).':.'.•'. : • • • • • ' • • • ' • : • • • • • • • • • " • • ' • • • • ' : > : • • . • • ' • • : V ; : . ; • • • ' " • • • ' . : •. " • ' • ' • . . • • ' • • ' • • • • • • ; • • . ' • • ' • • • • . ' ; . : ' . - : : : - ' \ : : - : ' • • • '


AnnexIVAdditional Maps and Tables

Note: For China, only piped water was reported (excluding Mongolia).

Note: For China, only piped water was reported (excluding Mongolia).

Safe WaterSupply

Total urban populationwith access tofunctioning safe watersupply.


Legend

Not Reported

0% to 25%

20% to 50%

51% to 75%

76% to 100%

Safe WaterSupply

Total rural populationwith access tofunctioning safe watersupply.


Legend

Not Reported

0% to 25%

26% to 50%

m 51% to 75%

76% to 100%


Sanitation

Total urban populationwith access to adequateexcreta disposal.


Legend

Not Reported

0% to 25%

?>:;\ 26% to 50%

51% to 75%

76% to 100%

Ü

Sanitation

Total rural populationwith access to adequateexcreta disposal.


Legend

Not Reported

0% to 25%

26% to 50%

51% to 75%

76% to 100%

.,,:p^'^/<!y:T'w^

•p

ifit

' ^ Í 1 ' . - 1 / ' : ' . - » 1 . 1 . - * : - ! " 1 . ! . ' ^ •'•''•••(•'.'•''''•'.;'>:••


AfricaTotal Water Supply — Urban and Rural Combined

Coverage as a Percentage of Population Served

PopulationCountry1 (in thousands) 0 - 2 5 % 2 6 - 5 0 % 5 1 - 7 5 % 7 6 - 1 0 0 %

Angola

Burundi

ChadCameroon

Comoros

Côte d'Ivoire

Djibouti

Equat. Guinea

Ethiopia

Ghana

Guinea Bissau

Kenya

Madagascar

Mali

Nigeria

Rwanda

Senegal

Sierra Leone

Sudan

Togo

Tunisia

Uganda

Total

•••;®;Q02,^

5,266

5,550

11,482

468

10,736

480

356

50,974

14,200

1,000

24,398

11,200

8,100

108,016

7,800

6,928

3,664

24,600

3,496

7,900

16,794

333,410

—

'"..::.' - '. • ' . • •

—

22.9—

——

—

——

—

—

21.1

2

35.7

49.0 ' :

' : ' : : • . . • • • • • • • .

_ • • • • •

—

—

34.7

26.9—

— ••':?

48.6_

41.3

—

48.3

36.5

47.6

—

—

9

— • . : • . .

: • •

57.4

69.5

75.5—

—

60.6

52.9—

—

—

63.0

64.0_

—

—

59.6—

—

9

—

: —

—

—

83.5

—

—

—

—

— í_

—.

—

—

— •

92.2— : . " • • • • • • ' •

21 Countries which reported on 1990 baseline data for Safe Water Supply.


T A B L E

AfricaTotal Sanitation — Urban and Rural Combined


Country2Population(in thousands) 0 - 2 5 % 26-50% 51 - 75% 7 6 - 100%

Angola

Burundi

Cameroon

Comoros

Côte d'Ivoire

Djibouti

Equator. Guinea

Ghana

Guinea/Conakry

Kenya

Nigeria

Rwanda

Sudan

Togo

Tunisia

Uganda

Total

10,002

5,266

11,482

4Ó8

10,736

480

356

14,200

5,542

24,398

108,016

7,800

24,000

3,496

7,900

16,793

251,535

22.3

19.4—

——

—

—

—

20.9—

—

—

—

23.2

—

—

4

—

—

—

—

—

—

41.5

50.6—

41.5—

—

——

—

31.9

4

—

—

—

—

60.4

55.2—

—

—

—

64.856.7

74.8—

—

—

5

—

—

91.0

81.2—

—

—

——

—

—

—

——

95.3—

32 Countries which reported on 1990 baseline data for Sanitation.


T A B L E

Latin America & the CaribbeanTotal Water Supply — Urban and Rural Combined


Country1Population(in thousands) 0 - 25% 26-50% 51 -75% 7 6 - 100%

Barbados

Belize

Bolivia

Brit. Virgin Is.

Costa Rica

Dominica

Ecuador

El Salvador

Guyana

Haiti

Honduras

Jamaica

Mexico

Montserrat

Nicaragua

Paraguay

St, Kitts & Nevis

Total

257

184

6,928

14

2,940

80

10,782

5,250

775

6,267

4,880

2,400

81,100

15

3,807

4,280

34

129,993

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

0

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

47.4

—-

38.4

—

—

—

44.8

—

34.9

—

4

—

—

52.1—

—

—

54.5

—

—

—

Ó3.Ó

—

—

—

53.2

—

.—

4

100

90.2

—

100

93.2

95.8

—

—

83.2

—

—

100

76.1

—

—

— . •

100

9

' Countries which reported on 1990 baseline data for Safe Water Supply.


T A B L E 1 0

Latin America & the CaribbeanTotal Sanitation — Urban and Rural Combined


Country2Population(in thousands) 0 - 25% 26 - 50% 51-75% 76- 100%

Countries which reported on 1990 baseline data for Sanitation.

Barbados

Bolivia

Brit. Virgin.ls.

Costa Rica

Dominica

Ecuador

El Salvador

Guyana

Honduras

Jamaica

Mexico

Panama

Paraguay

Peru

St. Kitts & Nevis

Total

257

6,928

14

2,940

80

10,782

5,250

755

4,880

2,400

81,100

2,300

4,280

22,332

34

144,332

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

——

—

—

—

—

0

—26.5—

—

—

48.4——

—

—

50.2—

—

—

—

3

——————57.5—

57.0—

—

—

62.0

57.5—4

100—100

97.4

98.8—

—

96.7—

85.4—

84.3—

—

98.5

8


T A B L E 1 1Asia and the Pacific

Total Water Supply — Rural and Urban CombinedCoverage as a Percentage of Population Served

PopulationCountry1

Afghanistan

Bangladesh

Bhutan

Cambodia

China

India

Indonesia

Iran

Laos

Maldives

Myanmar

Pakistan

Philippines

Rep. Korea

Sri Lanka

Thailand

Vietnam

Total

in thousands)

17,600

113,005

1,2008,134

1,143,330

853,380

179,500

60,816

4,100

21340,100

116,000

61,480

43,500

17,617

55,88864,400

2,780,263

0 - 25%

——

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

0

26 - 50%

—

—

34.2

36.3—

—

—

—

34.649.4

32.1

—

—

—

—

—

41.9

6

51 - 7 5 %

—

——

—

—

—

56.9—

—

—

—

56.1—

—

71.2—

—

3

7 6 - 100%

99.2

79.7%—

—

79.12

85.2—

89.0—

—

—

—

80.0

100—

95.4—

8

'Countries which reported on 1990 baselinedata for Safe Water Supply. :

1 For China, only piped water was reported(excluding Mongolia).

T A B L E 1 2Asia & the Pacific

Total Sanitation — Rural and Urban CombinedCoverage as a Percentage of Population Served

Country2

Bangladesh

Bhutan

Cambodia

India

Indonesia

Laos

Maldives

Myanmar

Pakistan

Philippines

Rep. Korea

Sri Lanka

Thailand

Vietnam

Total

Population(in thousands

113,005

1,200

8,134

853,380

179,500

4,100

213

40,100116,000

61,480

43,50017,617

55,888

64,400

1,558,517

0 - 25%

20.0

13.014.4

16.2—

11.4

23.9—

24.4

—

—

—

—

—

7

26 - 50%

—

—

—

—

38——

35.0—

—

—

——

—

2

51 - 7 5 %

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

70.6—

60.2—

62.1

3

7 6 - 100%

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

100—

89.7—

2'• Countries which reported on 1990 baseline data for Sanitation.


T A B L E 1

West AsiaTotal Water Supply — Urban and Rural Combined


Country'Population(in thousands) 0 — 25% 26 — 50% 51 - 75% 76 — 100%

Jordan

Oman

Syrian Arab Rep.

Yemen

Total

ó,082

1,468

12,113

10,620

30,283

— • . • • • • ' • • : • : • • ; : ;

—

—

—

0

i t i i s i "•:"••'•,:•••• •.

—

—

36.0

1

—

54.4——

1

89.0

84.0— • • ; • • • • . • :

21 Countries which reported on 1990 baseline data for Safe Water Supply.

T A B L E 1 4

West AsiaTotal Sanitation — Urban and Rural Combined


Country1

Oman

Syrian Arab Rep.

Yemen

Total

'opulationiti thousands)

1,468

12,113

10,62024,201

0 - 25%

— ' '

0

26 - 50%

48.2

r - ~ , • : • ' • •

51 - 7 5 %

65.2

7 6 - 100%

—

85.0. . _ , . • ; • .

v :. '1 Countries which reported <?n 199Ö baseline data ifer; Sanitation,


Annex VGeneric Guidelines for DevelopingEnhanced Sector Monitoring at Country LevelThese generic guidelines were developed andrecommended by the participants of theRegional Monitoring Workshops held inJamaica, Swaziland and Benin.

Step One: Review of Monitoring Systems

Strategy:Conduct a survey on the existing monitoringsystems (routine and surveys) and identifystrengths and weaknesses.

Key Indicators:• List of key actors in the sector

II Status of coordination of monitoringmechanism

• Indication of existing types of information/data.

Assumptions:• All actors are willing to cooperate

• Appropriate resources/capacity available.

Step Two: Mobilize and sensitize key actorsat all levels.

Strategies:Conduct a monitoring workshop at the na-tional level to:• Present and discuss findings of Step One.

• Develop recommendations for policyguidelines for implementation

H Explain importance of sharing information

Key Indicators:• Commitment to a joint monitoring system.

• Agreement on who will participate inco-ordination.

• Recommendation on guidelines forimplementation.

Assumption:• Genuine commitment and clear understand-

ing of the need for coordinated monitoring.

Step Three: Strengthen/set up CoordinationCommittees at all levels.

Strategies:• Set up clear Terms of Reference (TORs).

• Institutionalize coordinating committees.

• Conduct monitoring workshops at differentlevels (see Step Two)

Key Indicators:• Clear TORs.

• Work schedule for the coordinatingcommittees.

• Develop TOR for focal point at differentlevels.

Assumption:• Existing institutions have the responsibility

and the capacity to implement the en-hanced monitoring system.

Step Four: Set up focal point(s) (Secretariat).

Strategy:Set up focal points in each sector (sanitation,social sectors, water, local government, etc.) atnational level responsible for monitoring andcoordination through existing structures forreporting to the National Coordination Com-mittee (see Step Three).

Key Indicator:• Sectorial information and data available

regularly at the different levels.

Assumption:• Relevant sector institution has the capacity,

understands the need and is willing to playits part.

Set up focal points

in each sector at

national level

responsible for

monitoring and

coordination through

existing structures...


Evaluate test results

and modify monitoring

system and Plan of

Action as necessary.

Step Five: Develop plan of action andidentify resources.

Strategies:• Using Step One identify type of data

required for each sector.

• Define monitoring actions/activitiesrequired.

• Quantify inputs necessary.

• Set time frames.

Key Indicators:• Draft of the country specific monitoring

system.

• Assessment of existing resources/workplans for all levels.

Assumption:• Coordinating committees (comprising

members of existing monitoring/surveil-lance structures) at different levels are inplace and functioning.

Step Six: Develop country specific monitor-ing system.

Strategy:Set up a sectoral/multi-sectoral working groupto adapt existing monitoring systems to therequirements of the country — includingWAS A M S (which will then feed back into theWASAMS "core indicators").

Key Indicators:• Data collection formats that are simple but

comprehensively developed and feed intothe "core indicators" of WASAMS.

• Data Analysis system setup.

• Feedback mechanism in place.

Assumptions:• Results of Step One obtained.

• Get the commitment of Focal Points in thesectors.

• Appropriate resources/capacity available/mobilized.

Step Seven: Testing the Monitoring System,

Strategies:• Select pilot lest sites at different levels for

implementation.

• Evaluate test results and modify monitoringsystem and Plan of Action as (may be )necessary.

Key Indicator:H Quality and reliability of data, timeliness

and flow of information attained.

Assumption:• Existence of "political will" and resources.

Step Eight: Go to Scale! and continue to usethe "Triple A" (Assessment, Analysis andAction) in a cyclical manner.

Note: Most of the assumptions refer to capac-ity building and advocacy related constraints.These will have to be tackled through trainingand dialogue at different levels with theassistance of ES As if required. ®


WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme

The Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Monitoring Report 1990 (Baseline Year)provides a "benchmark" to measure progress of the water and sanitation sector in the1990s. It also furnishes planners and policy makers (both country level and ExternalSupport Agencies) with fundamental information for enhanced planning, policyformulation, advocacy and support needs of the sector.

The publication contains preliminary data on sector coverage, management andfunding, voluntarily provided by 70 governments out of approximately 130 countriesinvited to participate. This high return rate of 54 percent clearly indicates the wish bymany governments to attract greater focus on the water and sanitation sector at country,regional and global levels.

The report draws from experience, crucial lessons learnt, achievements and constraintsof the 1980s in an attempt to better develop a foundation for sector developmentapproaches in the 1990s. In doing so, the report helps to better focus attention on theunserved and underserved, especially those impoverished populations living in marginalurban and rural areas of developing countries. To narrow the gap between the served andthe unserved, the report highlights the need to more seriously promote the use ofappropriate low-cost technologies in an attempt to accelerate the provision of a basic levelof service to all mankind.

And finally, the report puts forward a framework for improved sector planning to helpachieve accelerated sustainable service coverage in the shortest possible time-frame.

For additional information or copies of this report, please write to:

The ChiefWater and Environmental Sanitation Section

UNICEF, HI IFThree United Nations Plaza

New York, NY 10017Fax Number: (212) 326-7438

The ManagerCommunity Water Supply and Sanitation

EHE/CW5World Health organisation

1211 Geneva 27, SwitzerlandFax Number: (4122) 791 0746

The countries shown in colour on the front cover are thosewhich responded to the WASAMS 1990 baseline survey.

Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Monitoring Report 1990 · 820 INT92 Water Supply and Sanitation...

Documents

Transcript of Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Monitoring Report 1990 · 820 INT92 Water Supply and Sanitation...