Monitoring sanitation and hygiene in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: A review through the lens of human rights

Abstract

International monitoring of drinking water and sanitation has been jointly carried out by WHO and UNICEF through their Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP). With the end of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) era in 2015, the JMP has proposed a post-2015 framework for integrated monitoring of water and sanitation targets included in the Sustainable Development Goal no. 6. This article discusses how each element of the proposed sanitation target and corresponding indicators can be understood from a human rights perspective. Building on the MDGs, and although some of the weaknesses and gaps persist, the discussion suggests that the post-2015 proposal is a step forward towards a monitoring framework where human rights elements related to sanitation are effectively promoted. In addition, to support the interpretation and implementation of the normative content of human rights obligations related to sanitation, the study proposes a reduced set of easy-to-assess indicators to measure the normative criteria of this right, which are then grouped in a multidimensional framework to describe increasing levels of sanitation service. To do this, the study combines literature review and specific local experience from three case studies. It is shown that the proposed monitoring tools, namely the indicators and the multidimensional indicator framework, provide guidance on monitoring the human right to sanitation. In doing so, they might ultimately help sector stakeholders in the realization of this right.

Monitoring and targeting the sanitation poor: A multidimensional approach

“…In turn, variables should be selected on the basis of their relevance to the issue at hand and measurability, i.e., availability of sufficient and reliable data. At the international level, there is broad consensus that sanitation monitoring should take into account the normative criteria enshrined in the UN resolution on Human Rights to Water and Sanitation (Giné‐Garriga et al , ; Joint Monitoring Programme, ). In keeping with this goal, the quality of sanitation services may be described on the basis of the contents of the Human Right to Sanitation (HRtS) resolution (United Nations General Assembly, 2010a; 2010b; 2015b).…”

“…Table proposes a short list of illustrative indicators that could be employed to monitor sanitation outcomes in households from a human rights perspective. Each indicator is assessed against four different levels of service, namely good service level, intermediate, poor and no level of service (Giné‐Garriga et al , ). By way of example, people who defecate openly in gutters, fields, beaches and water bodies, presenting significant risks to personal security and public health, suffer the lowest level of service (i.e.…”

“…the proposed aggregation function employed to build up the composite is the arithmetic mean of available indicators (e.g., to calculate an index of latrine sanitary conditions, one could average three proxies, namely inside cleanliness, presence of insects and smell). Source : Giné‐Garriga et al ()…”

New Approaches to Monitor Inequalities in Access to Water and Sanitation: The SDGs in Latin America and the Caribbean

“…Whenever possible, the calculations were performed for the highest classification of the JMP's services ladders (i.e., "safely managed services"). When there was not enough data, the category "at least basic" services (also used by the JMP) was used instead [10]. Figures 3 and 4 shows the adjusted (IAIW) and non-adjusted access rates for water services: Among the eight countries with sufficient data to classify "safely managed" water services, Argentina, Chile, and Costa Rica had the highest proportion of access and the lowest inequality factors.…”

“…The HRWS were incorporated into the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, particularly in the SDG 6: "Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all". Contrary to the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), which did not explicitly address this matter, there is a strong alignment with the language of human rights in the formulation of Targets 6.1 and 6.2 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [9,10]. Notably, the concepts of quality/safety, equality and affordability were included in these targets.…”