Glaas At Dgis 08 Jun10 V1

UN-Water Global Annual Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water1 |

Netherlands stakeholder meeting

DGISThe Hague, 8 June 2010

Federico [email protected]

"Looking through the GLAAS"

"Looking through the GLAAS"


Context of presentationContext of presentation

First UN-Water GLAAS report launched on 21 April 2010

Report includes data from 27 donors (all major ones) and 42 developing countries


Context of presentationContext of presentation

WHO GLAAS team worked closely with World Bank WSP team that is preparing the Country Status Overviews for 32 African countries, on behalf of AMCOW

Collaboration with UNESCAP – shared

GLAAS questionnaire

IRC has provided support to

donor data collection


OutlineOutline

1. Impact of poor WASH

2. Priorities of money flows

3. Targeting of resources

4. Capacity to sustain progress

5. The role of partnerships

6. Highlights

7. Next steps


1. Impact of poor sanitationand unsafe water


HEALTH

2.2 million preventable deaths of children

Diarrhoea the second leading contributor to global disease burden

For children under 15, impact of diarrhoea greater than that of HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB combined

Overall around 9% of the global burden of disease attributable to poor sanitation and unsafe water

EDUCATION

11% increase in girls attendance in Bangladesh – UNICEF study

Evidence of increased learning performance when worm infections reduced

ECONOMY

$ economic benefits of many times the $ invested

World Bank estimate between 2% and 7% of GDP lost through poor sanitation and unsafe water in developing countries




% of deaths attibutable to WASH

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Afghanistan

Burkina Faso

Chad

Ethiopia

Liberia

Madagascar

Mali

Mauritania

Mozambique

Niger

Uganda

YemenSource:Safer Water, Better HealthWHO, 2008




Strong "business case",

but

how is the sector doing?


2. PrioritiesDonor priority sectors

2. PrioritiesDonor priority sectors


2. PrioritiesAid for health and education has outpaced aid

for sanitation and drinking-water

2. PrioritiesAid for health and education has outpaced aid

for sanitation and drinking-water

0%

5%

10%

15%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Aid c

omm

itmen

ts as

a pe

rcent

of to

tal O

DA co

mm

itmen

ts

Water and sanitationEducationHealth, population, HIV/AIDs


2. PrioritiesDeveloping countries report insufficient funds to meet the sanitation and water MDG target

2. PrioritiesDeveloping countries report insufficient funds to meet the sanitation and water MDG target


2. PrioritiesMedian <0.5% GDP on WASH

2. PrioritiesMedian <0.5% GDP on WASH


2. PrioritiesSchools… What sanitation?!?!?!?

2. PrioritiesSchools… What sanitation?!?!?!?


UN-Water GLAAS 2010 ReportRecommendation No. 1


Greater political commitment to sanitation and drinking-

water by donors and developing countries


3. Targeting42% of WASH aid to low-income countries

3. Targeting42% of WASH aid to low-income countries


3. TargetingGlobal trends of WASH aid

3. TargetingGlobal trends of WASH aid

Aid flows for basic water and sanitation remained relatively

constant at US$ 1.1 billion, while aid flows for large systems

increased from US$ 2.6 billion to US$ 4.3 billion from 2000 to 2008


3. TargetingDrinking-water dominates official

WASH financing

3. TargetingDrinking-water dominates official

WASH financing

Donors Countries


3. TargetingPoor targeting to unserved and poor

populations

3. TargetingPoor targeting to unserved and poor

populations




Target resources better to reach the sanitation and

drinking-water MDG Target


4. CapacitiesInstitutional roles and responsibilities need to

be better defined and operationalized

4. CapacitiesInstitutional roles and responsibilities need to

be better defined and operationalized


4. CapacitiesInvestment programmes in sanitation are

lagging behind

4. CapacitiesInvestment programmes in sanitation are

lagging behind


4. CapacitiesStaff shortages primarily due to

inadequate budgets

4. CapacitiesStaff shortages primarily due to

inadequate budgets




Strengthen national systems to plan, implement and

monitor delivery of services


5. PartnershipsProcedures to promote local stakeholder

participation are weak

5. PartnershipsProcedures to promote local stakeholder

participation are weak


5. PartnershipsMost aid recipients have a multitude of donors

disbursing funds

5. PartnershipsMost aid recipients have a multitude of donors

disbursing funds


5. PartnershipsAid disbursements generally follow

commitment levels

5. PartnershipsAid disbursements generally follow

commitment levelsU

S$

Mill

ion

s




Stronger partnerships to develop and implement national sanitation and

drinking-water plans


6. Highlights Donors (1)


1. WASH aid increased between 2000 and 2008: by over 150% to Africa and over 50% globally

2. Over the same period, WASH aid reduced as a % of overall aid (from approx 6.3% to 4.7%)

3. 42% of aid targeted to LICs (plus some regional aid)

4. Top 12 priority recipients receive 50% of WASH aid

5. Aid allocations per capita vary widely with 9 of 10 top recipients all Middle Income Countries and all lowest per capita recipients being Low Income Countries




6. ODA for basic services declined from 27% to 16% over the last five years

7. Donors targeted 37% of WASH aid to sanitation against 63% to water

8. Predictability of donor funding as perceived by GLAAS countries increasing

9. Don't know how much non-OECD donors or the private sector provide

10. No information on funding from households


6. Highlights Developing countries (1)


1. Most countries developed national MDG targets but financial flows to WASH insufficient to meet these national MDG targets in many countries

2. Governments spend 20% of WASH funds on sanitation (median figure)

3. Only one third of countries implement criteria for targeting resources to the poor for water and hardly any for sanitation




4. Most countries have developed WASH policies but only one half have clearly defined and operationalized roles for WASH institutions

5. Sanitation is lacking in many rural primary schools (less so for urban)

6. Expenditures on sanitation much less than on drinking-water in nearly every country surveyed, despite funding need being the same

7. Most countries are developing some kind of HRD plan, but many HR obstacles are cited




8. Many countries have an annual review process but few update undertakings made in previous reviews and 25% of countries have no review process

9. Around one third of sub-sectors utilize over 75% of donor commitments, but 20% utilize less than 50%

10. Local participation in planning and implementation of programmes not consistently applied in any of the four sub-sectors (urban/rural water/sanitation)


7. Next steps7. Next steps

GLAAS evaluation meeting, June 2010, hosted by DGIS

GLAAS 2010/11 survey starts summer 2010

GLAAS present at Stockholm WWW in a few events


THANK YOUTHANK YOU

www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/glaas

[email protected]

Federico [email protected]

Glaas At Dgis 08 Jun10 V1

Technology

Transcript of Glaas At Dgis 08 Jun10 V1