2016 UNC Water and Health Conference Monitoring SDG Target 6.2 - Experience from Uganda Richard Matua Directorate of Water Development Ministry of Water and Environment, Uganda 10.10.2016

Presentation Overview Process of Implementation Institutional Set-up Harmonization with National Monitoring Process Data availability Lessons Learned

Process of Implementation Please Note: I am suggesting to use this illustration, but we may show it in two or three consecutive slides to only present parts of it at a time. The first point of this slide is to show that actual stakeholder identification and nomination requires a lot of time Richard was only nominated at the beginning of September (2.5 months into PoC phase) – red spot The second point of this illustration is to show that actual capacity building in methods and tools is required, Furthermore, it can be highlighted that data is not readily available but exists We could hint towards the planned primary data collection

Two Level Collaboration The first point of this slide is that “two level coordination/collaboration” is required, both from an institutional but also from a data perspective. It will be highlighted, that WW and Ambient Water Quality by nature are set in two different parts of the ministry. Depending on which part leads on 6.3, the target will have a focus on one or the other. In Uganda, the DWRM has a clear focus on “ambient water quality”, therefore, testing of 6.3.1 did not find any attention at first.

Harmonisation with National Monitoring Process Golden Indicators Uganda national indicators for WASH services Yearly Sector Performance Review Working on aligning Golden Indicators to the SDG indicators Challenge: Different data sources

Golden Indicator 4.1 Household Sanitation % of people with access to improved sanitation in 2015/2016 Rural: 79% Urban: 85% JMP (2015) (incl. shared) Rural: 26% Urban: 73% References: JMP (2015). Country files: www.wssinfo.org/ + Uganda Water and Environment Sector Performance Report 2016

Data availability - Challenges Functionality of improved facilities is not easily verifiable (e.g. septic tanks) contained/not contained Safe disposal in situ currently not covered by surveys Informal faecal sludge emptying Data on treatment is available

Safely managed – Public Facilities The MWE-DWD is mandated to provide sanitation in public places, such as markets highways bus stations Would these be covered as “limited services”? What about faecal sludge management from these facilities?

Safely managed – Limited Services 63% of improved household facilities in urban areas are shared typically by the urban poor Monitoring management of faecal sludge from these facilities is important

Lessons learned Bureaucratic processes, such as the nomination of stakeholders, require time Implementation of methodology is feasible some time and resources required Progressive data availability by integrating new questions into surveys

Lessons learned Coordination and collaboration between ministries and service providers is paramount Local collaboration between Target 6.2 and 6.3 is crucial Target 6.3 requires a separate task team for each indicator (6.3.1 and 6.3.2)

Thank you and Goal 6 Team Uganda!