Are JMP Post-2015 indicators on WASH in schools a step in the right direction
The JMP Post-2015 Working Groups have published a "Draft Long List of Goal Target and Indicator Options for Future Global Monitoring of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene". The working groups on Water, Sanitation and Hygiene have each included targets and indicators for WASH in schools. Have they got it right or should they start again from scratch?
The results of this first e-debate will serve as an input for the public consultation of the JMP Post-2015 Working Groups, which ends on September 20.
This is the first of in a series of three WASH in Schools e-debates scheduled for the coming months. The topics are inspired by questions asked during the implementation of the SWASH+ Project, an action-research school WASH project in Kenya.
For more information about the e-debates, including an overview of the proposed WASH in schools indicators, go to the WASH in Schools website.
Yes they are
Side Score: 8
No they are not
Side Score: 4
In the original version of the MDGs, water and sanitation were grouped as part of goal 7, to ensure environmental sustainability. There is considerable evidence that improved water, sanitation, and hygiene at home can lead to reduction in diarrhea and respiratory infection among children under 5. However, in the 2015 MDGs, the direct individual benefits of water and sanitation were not specified and hygiene was not mentioned. Whereas the previous WASH indicators do not address the quality, quantity and reliability of water supply, the new indicators specifically call for safe, affordable, and sustainable access. The post-MDG indicators are a step forward, but due in no small part that the previous ones were so limited.
In the 2015 MDGS, there was no mention of WASH in institutional settings, such as schools. There is now some limited evidence that WASH in schools can improve health, support an enabling environment for menstrual management, improve gender equity, and lead to reduced absence. Safe water, sanitation and hygiene-care practices are essential to ensuring that children get the best start in life; that they are able to enter school healthy, alert and ready to learn. The lack of WASH in schools indicators in the 2015 MDGs may have led to a lack of attention and funding. Without adequate indicators and data, it has been difficult to make appropriate policy decisions by national governments to prioritize WASH in schools. The post-2015 MDGs attempt to mitigate that gap. We need to continue to build our efforts not only in empirical scientific evidence but also in our practical know-how around WASH in schools.
Clearly, the proposed list will need to be paired down, however, the proposed indicators on WASH in schools by the JMP Post-2015 Working groups address the multi-dimensionality of WASH access – reliability, sustainability, safety – that were lacking in previous versions. In addition, there is a strong equity component missing from the 2015 MDGs, which led to the world “achieving” the water target, even when the poor were mostly excluded from access. Collection of the Post-2015 WASH and WASH in schools indicators will focus attention on health and development aspects of improved WASH and help target funding towards sustainable, safe, and affordable access by donors and governments.
Side: Yes they are
Clearly the list of indicators is too long at the moment. The final indicators, like the 2015 MDG targets, will need to be simple and monitor-able. The problem with this, as the list of existing suggestions indicates, is that school WASH is more complex than most of us imagined (and than most people still imagine). Like all public services, to be sustainable, school WASH involves financing, governance (including institutional support to and accountability of service providers), technology choices and associated supply chains, and social/normative change. The list is daunting. And Matt has rightly pointed out that having no measure of hygiene in the last MDGs was a mistake. Hand washing is still a lagging practice wher