A comparison of country performance in realizing universal WaSH The water, sanitation, and hygiene performance index Ryan Cronk The Water Institute at UNC The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 1
Human development and human rights context • Water and sanitation featured prominently in the Millennium Development Goals • Water and sanitation are recognized as human rights (through General Comment 15) • Progressive realization requires that each government take steps to achieve the full realization of rights to the maximum of its available resources 2
Human development and human rights context • The Sustainable Development Goals provide potential for convergence of human development and human rights policy. • Monitoring approaches to assess progress towards development goals have focused on the level of coverage • New monitoring instruments needed to examine performance and progressive realization (no quantitative measures of progressive realization exist) 3
The difference between coverage, rates of change, and performance Countries with high improved Countries with low water water coverage : coverage : • Sweden (100%) • D.R. Congo (47%) • France (100%) • Mozambique (49%) • United Kingdom (100%) • Mauritania (50%) High income countries Low income countries Challenge: comparing water access between high and low income countries is not meaningful 4
The difference between coverage, rates of change, and performance Countries with high rates of Countries with low rates of change in improving water access: change in improving water access: • Mali (4.3 percent per year) • Ghana (-1.32 percent per year) • Tajikistan (3.6 percent per year) • Solomon Islands (-1.7 percent per year) • El Salvador (3.6 percent per • Colombia (-2.4 percent per year) year) Challenge: Countries are at different levels of water and sanitation coverage AND development 5
The difference between coverage, rates of change, and performance • To compare countries fairly, we need to compare country rates of change to best-in-class performance at different levels of coverage. • Frontier analysis enables this comparison. • We based the WaSH Performance Index on this approach. 6
The WaSH Performance Index The WaSH Performance Index compares country performance in the following components: • Water access • Water equity • Sanitation access • Sanitation equity 7
Calculation of access and equity • Access: rate of change in improvement in coverage • Equity: the rate of change of the gap in coverage between rural and urban settings Decreasing equity in Timor Leste Increasing equity in Peru 8
Sanitation coverage in Bangladesh 86 Rate of change: 2.5 percent per year 84 82 Coverage (%) 80 78 76 74 72 Bangladesh (2007) Bangladesh (2009) Bangladesh (2010) Coverage data per year 9
Performance frontier, 8 Best-in-class performance 6 1 4 Rate of change (%/year) Bangladesh 0.5 2 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -2 -4 -1 -6 Improved sanitation coverage (%) All country rates of change Frontier points Performance frontier 10
Comparison of performance versus country characteristics • Bivariate regression • Independent variables include: • World Development Indicators: GDP, Under-five mortality rate, World Region, World Bank Income classification • Worldwide governance indicators (World Bank): control of corruption, voice and accountability, political stability, governance effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law • Future publications will incorporate additional data sources (e.g. UN- Water GLAAS) and include multivariate analysis 11
Water coverage Low water access coverage across Sub- Saharan Africa 12
Water access performance Mixed water access performance across Sub- Saharan Africa 13
Water access coverage versus performance Coverage Performance versus Despite persistently being the region with the lowest water coverage in the world, water access performance among countries in Sub-Saharan Africa varies widely, with both top and bottom performers. 14
Sanitation access performance Sanitation access performance vs. GDP (log) Sanitation coverage vs. GDP (log) 11 11 10 10 Despite the widespread assumption that countries with 9 9 GDLP (log) higher GDP will perform better in improving access to GDP (log) 8 8 7 7 water and sanitation, GDP is not correlated with 6 6 5 performance. R² = 0.4934 5 R² = 0.0032 4 4 10 30 50 70 90 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 Sanitation coverage (%) Sanitation performance index value 15
Sanitation equity performance • Progress toward equity in sanitation is associated with governance indicators including control of corruption, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, and rule of law. • These results suggest the enabling environment contributes to progress in sanitation equity. 16
Country rankings • Full list of country ranks on the Water Institute website: http://waterinstitute.unc.edu/wash-performance-index-report/ 17
Implications for policy and practice • Human rights: Index enables objective and comparable assessment of progressive realization. • Offers insight on country performance and relationships between country performance and country factors • The Index informs finance ministers, external support agencies, practitioners, and investors on the types of investments to make – for example, in infrastructure, governance or both. 18
Future improvements • Explore alternate models to calculate rates of change (e.g. Generalized Additive Models) 1 • Alternate calculations of equity (e.g. wealth quintiles) • Human rights specific index (e.g. including process and structure indicators) • Hygiene performance • Non-household settings (e.g. schools and health care facilities) 1 Fuller, J. A., Goldstick, J., Bartram, J., & Eisenberg, J. N. (2016). Tracking progress towards global drinking water and sanitation targets: A within and among country analysis. Science of The Total Environment , 541 , 857-864. 19
Thanks for your attention. Questions? Full report available on our website: http://waterinstitute.unc.edu/wash-performance-index-report/ Methods paper forthcoming Acknowledgements: Jeanne Luh, Ben Meier, Mike Fisher, Kate Shields, Kaida Liang, Jamie Bartram Funding provided by the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation Photo: Ryan Cronk, 2014 20
Back up slides 21
Implications for policy and practice Below average sanitation coverage Above average sanitation coverage 8 6 4 Rate of change (%/year) 2 Positive component value Negative component value 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -2 -4 -6 64% coverage, global sanitation average Improved sanitation coverage (%) 22 All historical rates Frontier points Maximum frontier
Implications for policy and practice Below average sanitation coverage Above average sanitation coverage 8 6 Invest in targeting 4 under- Invest in a mix of enabling environment and Rate of change (%/year) served Positive component value implementation 2 populations 0 Invest in country capacity building 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Negative component value and enabling environment -2 -4 -6 64% coverage, global sanitation average Improved sanitation coverage (%) 23 All historical rates Frontier points Maximum frontier
Stakeholder consultation • Think tank events held with stakeholders and experts at major WaSH events • Expert recommendations: • Clear communication of the concept • Align with SDGs • Future proof 24
Fig. 1. Different trajectories of access to drinking water and sanitation. Access to improved sanitation in rural Viet Nam showing a linear trajectory (Panel A). Access to improved sanitation in rural Thailand showing saturation (Panel B). Fuller, J. A., Goldstick, J., Bartram, J., & Eisenberg, J. N. (2016). Tracking progress towards global drinking water and sanitation targets: A within and among country analysis. Science of The Total Environment , 541 , 857-864. 25
The difference between coverage, rates of change, and performance Countries with high rates of Countries with low rates of change in improving sanitation change in improving sanitation access: access: • Pakistan (4.7 percent per year) • India (-2.9 percent per year) • Fiji (4.3 percent per year) • Burundi(-3.9 percent per year) • South Africa (4.2 percent per • Timor Leste (-5.4 percent per year) year) Challenge: Countries are at different levels of development 26
The difference between coverage, rates of change, and performance Countries with high rates of Countries with low rates of change in improving water equity: change in improving water equity: • Liberia (6.6 percent per year) • Gambia (-1.9 percent per year) • Zimbabwe (4.5 percent per year) • Cape Verde (-2.2 percent per year) • Niger(4.4 percent per year) • Timor-Leste (-2.3 percent per year) Challenge: Countries are at different levels of development 27
Overall index: top five and bottom five countries Top five countries: Bottom five countries: 1. El Salvador 1. The Dominican Republic 2. Niger 2. Gambia 3. Egypt 3. Ghana 4. Maldives 4. Samoa 5. Pakistan 5. Timor-Leste 28
Recommend
More recommend
