The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set
an historic precedent of global cooperation and mobilisation to achieve a
common set of humanitarian targets. By packaging the development objectives
into eight clearly defined and time-bound goals the MDGs have proved to be very
politically effective and have led to substantial (though highly-varied)
progress towards sustainable economic, social and environmental development
around the world (Sachs 2012).
Following on from 2000-2015, the Sustainable
Development Goals are a similar but more demanding and specific set of targets
that build on the MDGs and that aim to be completed by 2030 (UN 2016). The SDGs are made up of 169 clearly defined
targets grouped between 17 goals that encompass everything from eradicating
poverty to tackling climate change. Within these goals is included sustainable
development goal number 6: ‘Ensure
availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all’.
The objectives of this goal can be found here.
Two key targets of SDG 6 are to provide safe and affordable drinking water for all, as well as, adequate and equable sanitation
and hygiene for all. It is important to interrogate the definitions of these
targets in order to understand how they will be measured. The UN uses the term
‘improved’ to describe safe drinking water within water policy rhetoric. Having
access to an improved source of water, as defined by the UN, is to be within
200m of a source of water that has had human intervention to reduce its
contamination from pollutants such as faecal matter. However, this definition
has attracted concern from many water experts for hiding inconvenient
realities. For one, having an ‘improved’ source of water nearby does not
necessarily guarantee good access. In their paper, Tucker et al. (2014) investigated the socio-economic constraints on
improved water source access in Ethiopia. They found that access to improved
water sources was driven by interactions of poverty and rainfall variability,
rather than the presence of improved water sources. For example, poorer
households with less labour and capital to devote to water collection used less
water even when improved water sources were available. Furthermore, poorer
households were found to sometimes resort to using nearby, unimproved water
sources over improved sources located further away. Similar results were found
in Johannesburg following the installment of many communal taps in rural
communities. Although access (distance) improved significantly from 750m to
120m, water-use remained very low at around 18l per person per day (Jagais 2006)
Further criticisms have been raised regarding
the monitoring of improved water resources. After an improved water source is
installed it is not uncommon for it to fall into disrepair due to a lack of
maintenance. This may lead it to become contaminated and no longer safe to
drink. However, if the well is not regularly monitored (which many are not), as
far as the UN is concerned it will remain an improved source of water. In their
paper, Heitinger et al. (2015)
highlight this problem in Peru. They found that 47% of ‘improved water sources’
in the study area were contaminated with E.coli.
Furthermore, water collected from improved
water sources may also be contaminated between collection and the point of use.
Following the assessment of improved water sources in rural Zimbabwe and South
Africa, Gundry et al. (2006) found
that 12% of water samples collected at source were contaminated with E.coli. Yet
more than 40% of water samples collected from household storage were
contaminated, suggesting significant contamination between collection and the point
of use.
‘Improved sanitation’ is a similarly
ambiguous term. Many socio-economic factors affect a person’s access to
sanitation even when ‘improved sanitation’ is ‘available’. One particularly
pressing concern is the access inequality between men and women. Women are more
threatened than men when using sanitation facilities due to the risk of sexual
attack (see Moszynski 2010). It is therefore not uncommon for women to avoid
using toilets at night or indeed communal facilities during the day and instead
resort to alternative methods such as going to the loo in the home before
throwing it outside. In Lagos for example, 67% of women interviewed by WaterAid
stated they felt unsafe using a shared toilet (WaterAid 2012).
This blog has provided a brief overview of
the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals before looking in more detail at SDG
number 6. A critical stance was taken in order to highlight the complexity of
achieving improved water and sanitation access for all. If the UN is to achieve
SDG number 6 by 2030 it must carefully consider how it defines and measures access
to improved water/sanitation to ensure that statistics are not
misrepresentative of reality.
Thanks for a well argued blog. You do very well to cite literature (and websites) supporting your points in the blog. In light of your critical comments, the stated 'success' of the MDGs looks a little dubious no?
ReplyDeleteHi Richard,
ReplyDeleteYes, I would say that UN statistics such as; "2.6 billion people have gained access to improved drinking water sources since 1990", are likely to be overestimates due the apparent lack of monitoring by the UN of the state of improved water sources. However, this does not mean that they are not useful indicators of the progress that has been achieved by the MDGs, after all, it would be near impossible for the UN to keep track of all the world's local water sources. Statistics such as these do give a strong indication of what has been achieved, what more needs to be done and where future action should be focused. Furthermore, statistics like this one can be checked to some degree by other indicators. For example, according to the WHO, since 1990 global child mortality rates have more than halved, while adult mortality rates have fallen by about 25%. Together these statistics indicate that there has been a substantial increase in the use of improved water and sanitation services around the world.
I would therefore argue that the MDGs have been successful, but that this success is very difficult to measure to a high degree of accuracy. Statistics such as the one above should therefore be viewed as indicators of progress rather than absolute truths. Meanwhile the UN should examine the limitations of these statistics and attempt to increase their accuracy in order to get a more resolute picture of the progress being made.