Glaas At Dgis 08 Jun10 V1


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Glaas At Dgis 08 Jun10 V1

  1. 1. "Looking through the GLAAS" Netherlands stakeholder meeting DGIS The Hague, 8 June 2010 Federico Properzi [email_address]
  2. 2. Context of presentation <ul><li>First UN-Water GLAAS report launched on 21 April 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Report includes data from 27 donors (all major ones) and 42 developing countries </li></ul>
  3. 3. Context of presentation <ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration with UNESCAP – shared </li></ul><ul><li>GLAAS questionnaire </li></ul><ul><li>IRC has provided support to </li></ul><ul><li>donor data collection </li></ul>
  4. 4. Outline <ul><li>Impact of poor WASH </li></ul><ul><li>Priorities of money flows </li></ul><ul><li>Targeting of resources </li></ul><ul><li>Capacity to sustain progress </li></ul><ul><li>The role of partnerships </li></ul><ul><li>Highlights </li></ul><ul><li>Next steps </li></ul>
  5. 5. 1. Impact of poor sanitation and unsafe water <ul><li>HEALTH </li></ul><ul><li>2.2 million preventable deaths of children </li></ul><ul><li>Diarrhoea the second leading contributor to global disease burden </li></ul><ul><li>For children under 15, impact of diarrhoea greater than that of HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB combined </li></ul><ul><li>Overall around 9% of the global burden of disease attributable to poor sanitation and unsafe water </li></ul><ul><li>EDUCATION </li></ul><ul><li>11% increase in girls attendance in Bangladesh – UNICEF study </li></ul><ul><li>Evidence of increased learning performance when worm infections reduced </li></ul><ul><li>ECONOMY </li></ul><ul><li>$ economic benefits of many times the $ invested </li></ul><ul><li>World Bank estimate between 2% and 7% of GDP lost through poor sanitation and unsafe water in developing countries </li></ul>
  6. 6. 1. Impact of poor sanitation and unsafe water Source: Safer Water, Better Health WHO, 2008
  7. 7. 1. Impact of poor sanitation and unsafe water Strong &quot;business case&quot;, but how is the sector doing?
  8. 8. 2. Priorities Donor priority sectors
  9. 9. 2. Priorities A id for health and education has outpaced aid for sanitation and drinking-water
  10. 10. 2. Priorities Developing countries report insufficient funds to meet the sanitation and water MDG target
  11. 11. 2. Priorities Median <0.5% GDP on WASH
  12. 12. 2. Priorities Schools… What sanitation?!?!?!?
  13. 13. UN-Water GLAAS 2010 Report Recommendation No. 1 Greater political commitment to sanitation and drinking-water by donors and developing countries
  14. 14. 3. Targeting 42% of WASH aid to low-income countries
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 3. Targeting Drinking-water dominates official WASH financing Donors Countries
  17. 17. 3. Targeting Poor targeting to unserved and poor populations
  18. 18. UN-Water GLAAS 2010 Report Recommendation No. 2 Target resources better to reach the sanitation and drinking-water MDG Target
  19. 19. 4. Capacities Institutional roles and responsibilities need to be better defined and operationalized
  20. 20. 4. Capacities Investment programmes in sanitation are lagging behind
  21. 21. 4. Capacities Staff shortages primarily due to inadequate budgets
  22. 22. UN-Water GLAAS 2010 Report Recommendation No. 3 Strengthen national systems to plan, implement and monitor delivery of services
  23. 23. 5. Partnerships Procedures to promote local stakeholder participation are weak
  24. 24. 5. Partnerships Most aid recipients have a multitude of donors disbursing funds
  25. 25. 5. Partnerships Aid disbursements generally follow commitment levels US$ Millions
  26. 26. UN-Water GLAAS 2010 Report Recommendation No. 4 Stronger partnerships to develop and implement national sanitation and drinking-water plans
  27. 27. 6. Highlights Donors (1) <ul><li>WASH aid increased between 2000 and 2008: by over 150% to Africa and over 50% globally </li></ul><ul><li>Over the same period, WASH aid reduced as a % of overall aid (from approx 6.3% to 4.7%) </li></ul><ul><li>42% of aid targeted to LICs (plus some regional aid) </li></ul><ul><li>Top 12 priority recipients receive 50% of WASH aid </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul>
  28. 28. 6. Highlights Donors (2) <ul><li>ODA for basic services declined from 27% to 16% over the last five years </li></ul><ul><li>Donors targeted 37% of WASH aid to sanitation against 63% to water </li></ul><ul><li>Predictability of donor funding as perceived by GLAAS countries increasing </li></ul><ul><li>Don't know how much non-OECD donors or the private sector provide </li></ul><ul><li>No information on funding from households </li></ul>
  29. 29. 6. Highlights Developing countries (1) <ul><li>Most countries developed national MDG targets but financial flows to WASH insufficient to meet these national MDG targets in many countries </li></ul><ul><li>Governments spend 20% of WASH funds on sanitation (median figure) </li></ul><ul><li>Only one third of countries implement criteria for targeting resources to the poor for water and hardly any for sanitation </li></ul>
  30. 30. 6. Highlights Developing countries (2) <ul><li>Most countries have developed WASH policies but only one half have clearly defined and operationalized roles for WASH institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Sanitation is lacking in many rural primary schools (less so for urban) </li></ul><ul><li>Expenditures on sanitation much less than on drinking-water in nearly every country surveyed, despite funding need being the same </li></ul><ul><li>Most countries are developing some kind of HRD plan, but many HR obstacles are cited </li></ul>
  31. 31. 6. Highlights Developing countries (3) <ul><li>Many countries have an annual review process but few update undertakings made in previous reviews and 25% of countries have no review process </li></ul><ul><li>Around one third of sub-sectors utilize over 75% of donor commitments, but 20% utilize less than 50% </li></ul><ul><li>Local participation in planning and implementation of programmes not consistently applied in any of the four sub-sectors (urban/rural water/sanitation) </li></ul>
  32. 32. 7. Next steps <ul><li>GLAAS evaluation meeting, June 2010, hosted by DGIS </li></ul><ul><li>GLAAS 2010/11 survey starts summer 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>GLAAS present at Stockholm WWW in a few events </li></ul>
  33. 33. THANK YOU [email_address] Federico Properzi [email_address]