PowerPoint Presentation

TitleJeremy BirdIWMI

Based on work byPay Drechsel and teamSanitation, Wastewater Management and Water Quality (SDG targets 6.2-6.3)Implementing the SDGs in the Post-2015 Development Agenda

In this session, we will focus on 6.2 and 6.3. and it is my pleasure to stimulate the discussion with some reflections supported by some current IWMI work.1

Finding the right balanceAmbitious targets and indicator setsPriority indicatorsBroad indicator definitions leads to complexityNeed for national capacity and buy-inGlobal comparabilityDaliel Leite,http://www.rock-on-rock-on.com/daliel.html

The SDG process is like searching the ideal balance between ambition and feasibility. We see many very comprehensive targets which would however each require multiple indicators.We see a move towards priority indicators.We see again broad definitions making each priority indicator a complex challenge.And we see questions on national buy-in and capacities to assess those indicators, while we also aim at global comparability. 2

Target 6.2 By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all, and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations.Target 6.3 By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release ofhazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse.Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

6.2 and 6.3 are perfect examples for this challenge.We have two complex targets which combine several sub-targets. There are many terms which qualify as indicator and require their own definition and scaling of what is acceptable or not. It short, these targets, like nearly all are quite a mouthful. 3

For 6.2: Percentage of population using safely managed sanitation services.

For 6.3: Percentage of wastewater safely treated, dis-aggregated by economic activity.

http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/2015/05/29/first-proposed-priority-indicator-list/Proposed priority indicators

So it is not surprising that the now suggested priority targets are rebalancing this over-ambition with an eye on what is/could be feasible to assess. The two proposed priority indicator for 6.2 and 6.3 have very short wording and actually overlap as safe ww treatment is part of safely managed sanitation services.

4

Definition for 6.2 indicatorPopulation using a basic sanitation facility which is not shared with other households (current JMP categories for improved sanitation) and where excreta is safely disposed in situ or transported to a designated place for safe disposal or treatment (these would be new data beyond the toilet which are limited in developing countries where on-site sanitation systems dominate).

The definition of the 6.2 priority indicator is however showing that 8 words can hide a lot. (so we are getting again ambitious)Importantly, the indicator goes clearly beyond what is currently assessed under the MDGs (i.e. number of toilets), covering the crucial part of what happens to the human waste beyond the household or toilet. (JMP= Joint Monitoring Program) This is a grey (if not black :-) area where data are usually limited in many countries.5

What happens when the pit is full?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sharadaprasad/

The question What happens when the pit is full? was now already 3 times the leading one for a whole conference (FSM 1 to 3; Fecal Sludge Management) showing how limited our knowledge is, in this often informal sector, and where investments are needed as fecal contamination is the key hazard in developing countries undermining public health. 6

Heather Purshouse, Grattan Maslin; IWMI, unpublishedKathmandu Valley

The currently explored approach to answer the question of What happens when the pit is full? is to study the material flows. Many of you will be familiar with the fecal flow diagrams (Shit Flow Diagrams - SFD) which show from containment to disposal/reuse the fate of excreta, via sewerage (top part) or collected from on-site sanitation (lower part). Green flow represents safe management; red flows indicate need for investments. This graphic shows what happens when the pit is full in Kathmandu (see tiny photo): There is a high probability that the fecal matter ends (after initial treatment in septic tanks) in the environment (yellow flow in circle) and its pathogens find the way back into the Food chain. But that is not an unusual pathway. Even the large majority of excreta which are successfully collected in sewers (green big arrow) end in the environment without safe treatment (red big arrow). 7

If current investment plans work out

However, if all development plans for the Kathmandu Valley work out as planned, at least the excreta captured in sewers should not pose any more problems by 2030. The onsite sanitation challenge will however remain. Obviously, mapping fecal flows allows us to set targets for cities or countries and record progress which could be very handy for SDG 6.28

SDG 6.2 monitoringIn support of WHO, IWMI is testing the flow assessment methodology at national scale in low-data environments of Ghana, Nepal, Peru, Sri Lanka and India.

Thanks to our national offices, Andy Peal and Luca di Mario.

Just read slide text9

*JMP official projections (maybe slightly different due to definition)Di Mario, Peal, Nikiema, Drechsel (unpublished)Improved SanitationUnimproved SanitationImproved and Safely Managed5%Total Not Safely ManagedUnimproved and Safely Managed4%90%15*-21%79-85*%

To Piped Sewer (2%)To Improved Pit Latrines (14%)Open defecation (21%)To Septic Tanks (5%)TreatmentEnd-use/ disposalEmptying and TransportContainment

To Unimproved Pit Latrines (5%)To Shared or Public Toilets (51%)Other Improved (0%)To Other Unimproved (O%)

WW not treated

WW treatedFS emptied

FS treatedFS not treated

FS not emptiedWW delivered to treatmentWW not delivered to treatment

FS emptied

FS emptied

FS not emptiedFS not emptiedFS treatedFS not treated

ContainedNot Contained

ContainedNot Contained

ContainedNot Contained

ContainedNot Contained

Not ContainedNot Contained

Safely abandoned

FS treated

FS not treated