This article discusses the present Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) that tells us about Drinking Water and Sanitation Status in a particular country. It has been observed that the estimation methodology or monitoring strategy of JMP needs to be thoroughly reviewed, given that there are no exclusive surveys carried out for Water and Sanitation purpose in the countries across the world. This article discusses the methodology JMP adopts and the way forward by siting the example of water and sanitation monitoring in India.
The JMP (Joint Monitoring Programme) for Water Supply and Sanitation serves as the official mechanism of the United Nations for monitoring access to drinking-water and sanitation, and for reporting globally on the status of Drinking-Water and Sanitation coverage.
The coverage estimates are used to measure progress towards MDG Target 7c, “To halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking-water and basic sanitation”
The JMP source says that “Currently the JMP database includes 729 nationally representative household surveys and 152 Censuses. Almost all of these come from developing regions and to a lesser extent from the Commonwealth of Independent States. Since a census in many developed countries is no longer used to collect information on water and sanitation, the JMP largely relies on administratively reported data for the developed countries. The JMP database currently includes 318 administratively reported data for developed countries.”
After doing a thorough analysis of the monitoring mechanism process of JMP that reports country progress on water and sanitation we find that there are areas of further improvement in JMP mechanism to make it more accurate and robust monitoring programme.
For this purpose we took example from India on JMP mechanism. In India, as in other parts of the world, JMP process reports the progress of safe drinking water provisions and basic sanitation facilities under MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) framework. Here in India, the JMP rely at two sources or rather one source of information’s i.e. NFHS / DHS (National Family Health Survey).
For rural areas officially the data is collected by the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) of Government of India for Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation, and for urban areas- Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD). The second source of information is the data provided under DHS (National Family Health Survey-NFHS), which comes in the purview of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) of Government of India. Here, JMP uses the second source of information. Therefore, this source could be termed as ‘administratively reported data’ source from Government as per JMP’s definition.
However, the former sources of information- MoRD / MoUD, which they carry through their respective monitoring divisions, have various collection, monitoring and validation glitches. So this data needed cautious consideration before adopting to report countrywide progress on the coverage of water supply and sanitation and usually not much in use. Also, this data is not used by JMP for country progress on water and sanitation.
The subsequent source of information is NFHS (also known as DHS), which has a robust mechanism of data collection, validation and reporting.
However, the focus of NFHS is Health and Family planning and so it is more skewed toward health related data collection.
So, when applying the data collected through NFHS, scientifically we need to be very sure to understand that how much importance has been given to the information elicited on drinking water and sanitation in this ‘Health Survey’. As the whole process of study/research methodology i.e. sampling design, population coverage, sample size, study tools, etc. look in to the issues of Health, Family Planning and HIV Aids primarily.
Here, we concluded that, one need to closely compare the general ‘core questions provided on drinking-water and sanitation’ for household surveys under JMP guidelines and Water and Sanitation related tools provided in NFHS, and also review scientifically the study methodology of NFHS. In this case these questions need more probing and the sampling should consider water and sanitation among primary focus.
From a thorough review we find that in NFHS / DHS, the sampling design provides estimates for demographic and health indicators and not on water supply and sanitation (Read note at the end of this article about the focus of NFHS). The determination of the overall sample size is also governed by the magnitude of the key indicators, the desired level of precision of the estimates, etc.. So, it is more about producing population and health indicators at both the national and state/province levels. This is the major limitations of NFHS or DHS data, which, at present is being used under JMP to show progress of a country on MDG target 7c.
We also find that the appropriate probing of questions is another issue in NFHS /DHS survey, as one can’t be sure, whether enough probing or questions are incorporated to elicit detailed information about drinking water and sanitation status.
Therefore, it is recommended that JMP should make use of surveys exclusively carried out to assess the water and sanitation coverage in developing countries, to have accurate evidences on the achievements in Water Supply and Sanitation coverage. This will not only help the country Governments for better planning but also helping our communities in better access to these services. The NFHS/DHS data could be taken as cursory assessment, but not as full fledge reliable data source on of a country’s situation in water and sanitation coverage.
What is NFHS/DHS: The NFHS survey, provides information on population, health and nutrition in India and each of its 29 states. The survey is based on a sample of households which is representative at the national and state levels. NFHS-3 provided trend data on key indicators and includes information on several new topics, such as HIV/AIDS-related behaviour and the health of slum populations, men and unmarried women, HIV prevalence. About-NFHS-DHS
—————————————-
Sujoy Chaudhury
February 10, 2012
Dear Vajpai
I think the idea if a separate water and sanitation survey is justified not just for the fact that the NFHS is health loaded and queries on water and sanitation do not have equal prioritization compared to other health queries, it is justified because we (India) are unlikely to meet our MDG 7 commitment. The TSC figures in 2015 might show that India has achieved about 80 % rural sanitation coverage , but that would not really reflect the story in the ground.
Sujoy Chaudhury
Kolkata
vajpai
February 10, 2012
Thank you Mr. Chaudhury for your observations and agreement on a separate monitoring system for JMP. What you say about TSC holds true and, I would say that our governments and agencies are therefore just vouching on their achievements in papers.
vajpai
February 4, 2012
On Feb 1, 2012 I wrote Bob R A Reed at WEDC, Loughborough University, UK about his observations. The communication is given below:
Dear Bob,
I thank you for the fact sheet on JMP http://wedc.lboro.ac.uk/resources/factsheets/FS004_JMP.pdf which I read with great interest. As I understand you have clearly mentioned about the limitation of JMP data on various parameters, India among the 2nd largest populous country of the world even do not fair in ‘national household surveys’, the the data for JMP comes from a Health Survey (DHS), which focuses on issues of Health, Family Planning and HIV AIDS.
Given this scenario, I did raise this issue long back even by writing to JMP team, I am still looking for a response from them. My point is that when our ‘research’ or ‘data’ collection methodology has ‘health’ focus our sampling and process becomes biased towards the data for water and sanitation, so we should not at all rely on such data from countries like India.
In my view there is an alternate and countries like India, should work on an exclusive survey on Water and Sanitation coverage through its responsible Ministry or Department. We have exclusive surveys for Population, Health, Forest, Land, etc, why it’s not possible that the world leaders /agencies push country governments to do it similarly for Water and Sanitation coverage, that has enormous bearing on the health, education and well being of our populations.
I look forward for your observation on my trailing mail below and suggestion that if you agree with this.
With warm regards
K N Vajpai
———————
Bob wrote: Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:27 PM
Dear Vajpai
Thank you for sharing your views on the subject of data gathering for the JMP survey. I think most people would agree with your views on the data and would certainly like to collect more specific information. I suppose the reason they don’t is primarily one of cost. Setting up large scale surveys is very time consuming and costly and we have to think whether the effort would be worth the benefits. The JMP survey is meant to be a broad brush approach, primarily for large scale international comparison and, more importantly, for monitoring change. The fact that governments have to stand up and publicly answer for their data to their piers on the world stage provides the impetus for them to improve. I’m not sure that more accurate data would seriously improve this.
So, in summary, despite the accepted weaknesses of the current survey methods, they probably serve their purpose of encouraging/pressurising governments at a high level to take the subject seriously and support improvement.
bob
R A Reed, WEDC, John Pickford Building, Loughborough University
LE11 3TU, UK , Tel 44 (0) 1509 222628 Fax 44 (0) 1509 211079 Skype bob.reed2
————
My response to Bob on Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 9:54 AM
Dear Bob,
Thank you very much for your quick and thoughtful response. Much appreciated.
Bob, in my view the reasons highlighted by you might be their but, what I understand is that when we can spent billion dollars on many surveys and monitoring, what deters us doing it for water and sanitation. If we think it in the perspective of ‘water’ as our life and ‘health’ problems due to sanitation our survival on this earth, it will make sense. In my view the process of DHS, called NFHS (National Family Health Survey), is a time consuming process still here in India (from where JMP gets its data), and still the government does it, as ‘health’ concerns are important for our people. Therefore, we must also do it for water and sanitation, by keeping its importance and linkage in mind.
Will it make sense that due to water borne diseases hundreds or thousands of children still die in India ! Whereas this exclusive survey will make sense when we exactly know such scenario and develop a plan based on that, rather getting very generic idea from NFHS data. Therefore, doing an accurate survey will improve the situation many folds for sure.
Also, in my view, its not about just pressuring the government, based on its inaccurate data, which don’t revel the real picture. I can give you many such examples from India, where as per NFHS data the situation of water and sanitation is good, but, in practical it’s not and people are facing it at the cost of their lives.
Though, I understand your global perspective, but, how long we will adopt a monitoring system, which is just meant to advocate for adequate sanitation and improved water, rather looking in to deeper problem areas, so the communities are benefited and real picture is on the table for better planning.
Thank you so much Bob for your observations again.
Kind regards
K N Vajpai
Mark Haltmeier
February 4, 2012
In response to my communication with WHO and UNICEF’s JMP team I got response from Mark, which is given below:
Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:37 PM
Thanks for your detailed and interesting email that I’ve forwarded to the JMP team at WHO Geneva.
Having worked in the area of water and sanitation as well as having processed lots of data, I’m aware of the biases and limitations you mention and know that the JMP team is also conscious of these shortcomings and is doing its best to improve the situation.
Wish you a pleasant week !
Best regards
Mark Haltmeier
rue de la Serre 11
2000 Neuchâtel