Glaas At Dgis 08 Jun10 V1

"Looking through the GLAAS" Netherlands stakeholder meeting DGIS The Hague, 8 June 2010 Federico Properzi [email_address]

Context 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 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

Outline
Impact of poor WASH
Priorities of money flows
Targeting of resources
Capacity to sustain progress
The role of partnerships
Highlights
Next steps

1. Impact of poor sanitation and 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

1. Impact of poor sanitation and unsafe water Source: Safer Water, Better Health WHO, 2008

1. Impact of poor sanitation and unsafe water Strong "business case", but how is the sector doing?

2. Priorities Donor priority sectors

2. Priorities A id for health and education has outpaced aid for sanitation and drinking-water

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

2. Priorities Median <0.5% GDP on WASH

2. Priorities Schools… What sanitation?!?!?!?

UN-Water GLAAS 2010 Report Recommendation No. 1 Greater political commitment to sanitation and drinking-water by donors and developing countries

3. Targeting 42% of WASH aid to low-income countries

3. Targeting Global 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. Targeting Drinking-water dominates official WASH financing Donors Countries

3. Targeting Poor targeting to unserved and poor populations

UN-Water GLAAS 2010 Report Recommendation No. 2 Target resources better to reach the sanitation and drinking-water MDG Target

4. Capacities Institutional roles and responsibilities need to be better defined and operationalized

4. Capacities Investment programmes in sanitation are lagging behind

4. Capacities Staff shortages primarily due to inadequate budgets

UN-Water GLAAS 2010 Report Recommendation No. 3 Strengthen national systems to plan, implement and monitor delivery of services

5. Partnerships Procedures to promote local stakeholder participation are weak

5. Partnerships Most aid recipients have a multitude of donors disbursing funds

5. Partnerships Aid disbursements generally follow commitment levels US$ Millions

UN-Water GLAAS 2010 Report Recommendation No. 4 Stronger partnerships to develop and implement national sanitation and drinking-water plans

6. Highlights Donors (1)
WASH aid increased between 2000 and 2008: by over 150% to Africa and over 50% globally
Over the same period, WASH aid reduced as a % of overall aid (from approx 6.3% to 4.7%)
42% of aid targeted to LICs (plus some regional aid)
Top 12 priority recipients receive 50% of WASH aid
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. Highlights Donors (2)
ODA for basic services declined from 27% to 16% over the last five years
Donors targeted 37% of WASH aid to sanitation against 63% to water
Predictability of donor funding as perceived by GLAAS countries increasing
Don't know how much non-OECD donors or the private sector provide
No information on funding from households

6. Highlights Developing countries (1)
Most countries developed national MDG targets but financial flows to WASH insufficient to meet these national MDG targets in many countries
Governments spend 20% of WASH funds on sanitation (median figure)
Only one third of countries implement criteria for targeting resources to the poor for water and hardly any for sanitation

Most countries have developed WASH policies but only one half have clearly defined and operationalized roles for WASH institutions
Sanitation is lacking in many rural primary schools (less so for urban)
Expenditures on sanitation much less than on drinking-water in nearly every country surveyed, despite funding need being the same
Most countries are developing some kind of HRD plan, but many HR obstacles are cited

Many countries have an annual review process but few update undertakings made in previous reviews and 25% of countries have no review process
Around one third of sub-sectors utilize over 75% of donor commitments, but 20% utilize less than 50%
Local participation in planning and implementation of programmes not consistently applied in any of the four sub-sectors (urban/rural water/sanitation)

7. 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 YOU www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/glaas [email_address] Federico Properzi [email_address]

Glaas At Dgis 08 Jun10 V1

by IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre on Jun 11, 2010

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 28

Statistics

Glaas At Dgis 08 Jun10 V1 — Presentation Transcript