Interesting post summing up some common challenges facing Open Data by Linda Araftree
Today was day one of the (first?) East Africa CSO forum, which will continue until Friday, with sharing of experience from colleagues in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Ethiopia and South Sudan, plus non-east African interlopers from Malawi, Ghana, Switzerland and the UK.
A huge amount of ground was covered, shedding real light on some of the challenges facing advocates for water, sanitation and hygiene in the region. Some highlights (lowlights?) including buck-passing between government and donors for responsibility for commitments that have been made, lack of political space for civil society, and the ever present problem of poor data and opaque government processes, one area where hopefully WASHwatch can add some value.
Tomorrow I will be discussing the possibilities for open data to help these sector experts make the most of their breadth of experience and diverse experience.
In day 2 of the East Africa CSO WASH forum we had the opportunity to present the WASHwatch platform to all the delegates, and discuss how it might be used in different contexts.
This produced some great ideas for using the information and updating it in Rwanda and Uganda, as well as taking the opportunity for members of our community to raise challenges and concerns. One concern is the question of how the WASHwatch data is validated.
The analysis presented in WASHwatch is not independently validated, the ongoing discussion between civil society and government will keep improving the quality of data. The best way for CSOs to validate? Take the analysis to the minister, bring it to the attention of the Ministry of Finance, and see if they agree. If so, share this with the world by updating the site or the blog!
If the ministries disagree, this is a fantastic opportunity to demand that the government provide their own analysis, and supporting information, helping to open up the crucial information we need to hold people to account.
This discussion brought out the idea of having a ‘disclaimer’ on the front page, which is an idea we will follow up on in the next few weeks. We are clear what WASHwatch is, but we should also be clear what WASHwatch is NOT.
Disclaimer: WASHwatch.org is NOT the last word – it is always a work in progress.
This platform allows us to share our best analysis, based on the information we have available, and to have a structured, open space to discuss and improved it. It does not claim to be perfect, and if you spot errors, or have information that has not been taken into account, please do not hesitate to share it to improve the analysis – either register and leave a comment, or email email@example.com
The following was sent to us by an anonymous WASHwatch contributor illustrating some challenges faced when measuring and monitoring WASH progress. Do you agree? Have you experienced similar discrepancies between reported and actual coverage? Join the conversation!
“In rural households, it is the responsibility of women and girls to fetch water. Water is available at distant sources (typically, 4 to 6 km away from homes). The quality of water, meant for drinking, is poor and unsafe.
Rural water supply systems have not been properly developed in Sindh, technically. The water treatment works do not conform to the sound principles of water engineering. Waterborne diseases are rampant in the rural Sindh. About 40 per cent of beds in hospitals are occupied by patients suffering from waterborne diseases, mostly in rural areas (WWF, 2007).
Hygiene principles go hand in hand with the water supply, if the full benefits of water supply are to be accrued. Adoption of hygiene principles (principally, the hand-washing) are absent. Women consider the feces of the infants as harmless.
Erroneous Coverage Reporting
Significant errors occur in reporting the rural water supply coverage. Based on the extensive experience of the writer in rural water supply, the rural water supply coverage in Sindh would be around 10 per cent, currently. As against this, the figures reported in international circles are as high as 90 per cent. Detailed insight revealed how and why this happens.
Rural water supply projects, when submitted to the government for approval, require filling a proforma that asks about the number of people that will be benefited from the project. Water consumption per capita per day is shown on a lower side, and this increase the size of the population benefited, way beyond the reasonable figure. For example, water demand is taken as 5 liters/day per capita; thus a water treatment plant of 4,000 cubic meters per day will serve 0.8 million people, which is an incorrect estimation.
The incorrect and out-of-proportion population figures are transmitted to federal government, which in turn, are forwarded to the international agencies, giving incorrect population figures of rural population that have access to water supply facilities. In practice, not even one-quarter of population, reported by the federal government, have access to safe water. As can be seen from Table 1, the water coverage in rural areas varies from 10 to 90 per cent.
Table 1 Rural water coverage in Pakistan from Various Sources
% Rural water coverage in Pakistan and Source
10 Sindh’s Development: Issues & Agenda, World Bank (year?)
13 Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement Survey (PSLM),
90 WASH Strategy, NDMA, PK Gov (overall percentage)
87 ADB Asia Water Watch 2015 (figures for 2002)
65 Sadia Jabeen, et al., 2011; (total coverage)
88 JMP (updated March 2012)
10 Writer’s estimate, 2013
Pakistan government’s household survey report (2004) shows that access to “improved” water in Pakistan increased from 83 per cent in 1990 to 91 per cent in 2004, while “improved” sanitation coverage increased from 37 per cent to 59 per cent during the same period. The water coverage figures are incorrect and are on a very higher side. Table 2 shows these figures, while Table 3 gives the similar coverage for a number of years. Both the Tables show high percentage of population coverage.
Table 2 Access to water and Sanitation in Pakistan (2004)
|Urban %*||Rural %*||Total|
*34% of the total population
**66% of the total population
Source: Pakistan Household Survey, 2004
Table 3 Population with Access to Improved Water and Sanitation – Pakistan, %
Source: Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Pacific, 2008, UNESCAP, Bangkok
The sanitation coverage percentage in rural Sindh is very low (10 per cent). Water treatment and sewage treatment is poor. According to this writer, poor treatment = no treatment. This contention will again impact the WASH coverage.
Early Recovery Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Strategy, Dec 2010, National Disaster Management Authority, Government of Pakistan, Prime Minister’s Secretariat, Islamabad.
Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement Survey (PSLM), 2010-11, Stat. Div, Govt. of Pakistan, Islamabad
Pakistan’s Waters at Risk, Water and Health Related Issues in Pakistan and Key Recommendations, WWF, 2007, Lahore, Pakistan
Sadia Jabeen, et al. (2011), Health Impact Caused by Poor Water and Sanitation in Dist. Abbottabad, J Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad 2011, 23(1).
Sindh’s Development: Issues & Agenda, The World Bank, year(?) siteresources.worldbank.org/PAKISTANEXTN/Resources/…/Sindh.p…”