SDG 6 progress analyses in sub-Saharan Africa from 2015–2020: the need for urgent action

Abstract

This study used data from various international databases to track the progress of SDG 6 target indicators in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) region between 2015 and 2020. Findings showed that although minimal positive progress was realized in the evaluation period, more than half of SSA residents had no access to safe drinking water services, improved sanitation facilities, hygiene services and safe wastewater treatment. The computed SDG 6 profile index conformed with the trend of indicators as progress of the region to the goal’s realization was rated as medium–low. The trend was further compounded by limited data, preferential access to water and sanitation services to the urban rich and poor monitoring of progress. The analysis also noted that despite these challenges the region was putting concerted efforts to promote transboundary cooperation in water management and had 6% of water stressed resources. The study recommended on the need to revamp water data collection and monitoring efforts to enable decision-making and planning on management actions, use of technology to treat and reuse wastewater as well as device new sources of water, enhanced participation of communities in water projects and improved water use efficiency to steer progress towards SDG 6 realization in SSA region.

1 Introduction

Water is essential for the survival of humans and in a day, a minimum of 7.5 L of the resource is required at most basic for personal hygiene, preparing food and drinking while 50 L is needed to meet the laundry, cleaning, domestic, food hygiene and personal hygiene needs adequately for an individual, daily [1]. The value is exclusive of water used for industrial and agricultural uses as well as for environmental flow. The essentiality of water and its access was formally recognized as a human right by the United Nations in 2010 [2] before being acknowledged as a crucial aspect of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development in sustainable development goal 6 (SDG 6) to ensure universal clean water and sanitation availability for all by 2030 [3, 4]. The SDG 6 is divided into different targets and indicators representing various aspects of water and sanitation. The UN-Water [5], further reiterated that availability of good quality water was key to economic welfare, human wellbeing and environmental wellness and as such, a failure to realize SDG 6 could equally result to a failure of the 2030 agenda. Other authors claim that the success of most SDGs rely on the progress of SDG 6 [4, 6,7,8].

Some reports have concluded that the world is not on track with realization of SDG 6 [4, 9, 10]. The claim is supported by statistics showing that billions worldwide have no access to safe drinking water, handwashing and sanitation facilities. In addition, pollution of water resources and ecosystems is becoming more rampant and the funding provided to improve water and sanitation facilities is inadequate to keep up with the demand for the resource with rising population globally [4]. The delivery and governance systems for water resources are fragmented and weak [8]. These claims necessitate for urgent action to enable corrective measures towards universal access of water and sanitation.

The situation in tracking SDG 6 and its progress in poor developing nations is more wanting. In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) region, access to clean water and sanitation remains elusive [11]. A considerable portion of the population still has no access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation [12]. According to Armah et al. [13], SSA has the lowest coverage for water and sanitation access, did not meet the related millennium development goals (MDGs) since access improved drinking water sources increased by only 6% between 1990 and 2015 despite a double rise of the region’s population. In another study, Bishoge [14] noted that majority of the population in SSA among other developing nations do not have access to safely managed sanitation facilities and 28 to 48% of the population practiced open defecation especially in poorly planned informal settlements of major cities. Zerbro et al. [15] expressed similar water and sanitation challenges and attributed them to the poor socio-economic state of SSA residents. The authors further noted that the dire situation was the main cause of the high prevalence of diarrheal diseases in the region.

The situation is complexed even more due to lack of adequate, reliable and accurate baseline data to assess and quantify progress [14, 16] and limited resources and capacity to set aside policies and action plans to steer SDG 6 targets [17]. There are also major disparities in access to water and sanitation facilities based on gender, between rural and urban dwellers as well as individuals of different socioeconomic status, whereby poor urban dwellers are underserved [15, 18]. The water situation in the region is further compounded by low resilience and preparedness to deal with climate change effects [19]. A forecasting study in named SSA countries established a bleak situation in relevance to water and sanitation access [20]. The study noted that SSA will continue to lag behind in steering SDG 6 forward for the next 40 years compared to other regions of the world and its wash related economic losses and mortalities will rise unless affirmative actions in planning on water resources management are prioritized. Other authors have raised similar concerns of low access to safe water and sanitation facilities unless affirmative and collective actions are taken up in the region [13,14,15, 18, 19, 21, 22].

To this end, there is need to evaluate progress of SDG 6 in the region to identify milestones made and key pending challenges and take affirmative actions to bring the region back on track. According to Roche et al. [21], it is through monitoring and publishing changes in proportions of the populations with access to safe water and sanitation facilities that appropriate investments and policies can be directed to areas of high priority and greatest need. Therefore, this study aimed at evaluating the progress of SSA region towards realizing SDG 6 targets, identifying priority areas and making recommendations for improvements to put the region at per with others in the globe. To the best of the authors knowledge, there is no such tracking analysis that has been done in the region, which has made it difficult to quantify progress realized on SDG 6 effectively and take affirmative action in areas where there are gaps. This study therefore seeks to analyze progress realized in indicators of the goal between 2015 and 2020 and make recommendations on the way forward after identifying existent gaps to relevant stakeholders.

2 Data and method

Data used in this study to rate the progress of SDG 6 in SSA region was sourced from the UN-water integrated monitoring database (Available online: http://www.sdg6monitoring.org/) [23]. The database compiles data collected by international organizations including the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), UN environmental Program (UNEP), UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), UN children’s fund (UNICEF) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to monitor progress towards realization of SDG 6. The timeframe evaluated was between 2015 and 2020 based on data availability. The 11 indicators for the 6 targets of the SDG were considered. Indicator 6.1 on achieving affordable and safe water for all is a revised version of millennium development goal 7 (MDG 7) [24].

The progress of indicator 6.1.1 was determined by estimating the percentage of the population using safely managed drinking water services as shown in Eq. 1. The sources of the drinking water based on the location of the users was also considered.

$${\text{I}}_{6.1.1}=\frac{{\text{P}}_{\text{dw}}}{{\text{P}}_{\text{t}}}$$

(1)

where I_6.1.1 is the % for the indicator, P_dw represented the number of people with access to water services that are considered safe and P_t is the total population.

The definition of various water access levels and sources of drinking water for rating indicator 6.1.1 were as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Target 6.1.1 of SDG 6 definitions ([25]

In determining the progress on indicator 6.2.1 on sanitation and hygiene in SSA, the population using safely managed sanitation services including handwashing facilities was computed using the formula in Eq. 2.

$${\text{I}}_{6.2.1}=\frac{{\text{P}}_{\text{s}}}{{\text{P}}_{\text{t}}}$$

(2)

where I_6.2.1 is the % of the indicator and P_s is the population using safely managed resources.

To determine the progress on indicator 6.3.1 on wastewater treatment, the amount of safely treated wastewater was compared to the total generated amounts (Eq. 3).

$${\text{I}}_{6.3.1}=\frac{{\text{WW}}_{\text{st}}}{{\text{WW}}_{\text{t}}}$$

(3)

I_6.3.1 is the % of the indicator, WW_st and WW_t represent the proportion of safely treated and the total generated wastewater, respectively.

Temporal variations in water use efficiency collectivity known as water productivity (indicator 6.4.1) [26] were computed by determining the gross domestic product of SSA in constant 2020 US dollars and total water withdrawals for all resource uses. Computation was done using Eqs. 4 and 5.

$${I}_{6.4.1}=100-\frac{40-WP}{40} (\text{WP }< 40)$$

(4)

$$\text{WP}=\frac{{\text{GDP}}^{2020}}{{\text{WD}}_{\text{t}}}$$

(5)

where I_6.4.1 is the % of the indicator, WP is the water productivity, 40 is a constant representing the mean water productivity in US dollars per m³ [27], GDP²⁰²⁰ is the gross domestic product in constant 2020 US dollars and WD_t is the total water withdrawals from all economic activities in SSA.

Progress in monitoring indicator 6.4.2 on water stress was done by dividing the total water withdrawals for all economic uses with the total renewable water resources and considering the water requirements for the environment. The formula used in the computation is as shown in Eq. 6.

$${\text{I}}_{6.4.2}=\frac{{\text{WD}}_{\text{t}}}{{\text{W}}_{\text{r}}-{\text{W}}_{\text{er}}}$$

(6)

I_6.4.2 is the water stress level, W_r is the total water withdrawals and W_er is the environmental water requirement.

To monitor progress of indicator 6.5.1 on water resources management in SSA region, four integrated water resources management (IWRM) aspects were considered. They include financing, management instruments, institutions and participation and an enabling environment as expressed in Eq. 7.

$${\text{I}}_{6.5.1 }=\frac{\text{F}+\text{MI}+\text{I}\&\text{P}+\text{EE}}{4} $$

(7)

where I_6.5.1 is the indicator, F is financing, I&P is institutions and participation, MI is management instruments and EE is enabling environment.

The progress of indicator 6.5.2 on transboundary cooperation in SSA was monitored using the transboundary water assessment program-river basins assessment (TWAP-RB) database scores that rate transboundary cooperation using a 1–5 Likert scale [28]. The TWAP-RB scores of 1–5 were converted to percentage values of 0–100 and Eq. 8 used to monitor progress.

$$ {\text{I}}_{6.5.2} = \frac{1}{{\text{N}}}\mathop \sum \limits_{{{\text{i}} = 1}}^{{\text{N}}} {\text{TC}}_{{\text{i}}} $$

(8)

where I_6.5.2 is the % of the indicator, N is the number of transboundary river basins in SSA and TC_i is the level of transboundary cooperation for each considered basin.

The data compiled from the indicators was used to compute an SDG 6 profile index for SSA region. The index is essential in rating progress on realizing the goal while taking into account all of the targets [27, 29]. The formula used to estimate the index is as shown in Eq. 9.

$${\text{SDG}}_{\text{I}}\frac{{\text{I}}_{6.1.1}+\frac{{I}_{6.2.1 +{I}_{6.2.2}}}{2}+ \frac{{\text{I}}_{6.3.1}+{\text{I}}_{6.3.2}}{2}+\frac{{\text{I}}_{6.4.1}+{\text{I}}_{6.4.2}}{2}+ {\text{I}}_{6.5.1}}{5}$$

(9)

The SDG 6 index (SDG_I) was rated and classified as shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Categories used to classify the SDG_I scores [28, 29]

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Progress based on specific indicators

In assessing the progress of target 1 in SSA, two variables were evaluated. The two were the proportion of the population using safely managed drinking water services and those using improved water sources. The obtained results are as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. In this context, safely managed water services describe water available in one’s home, available when required and free of chemical and fecal contamination [30] while improved drinking water source referred to a source whose construction protects it from exterior fecal contamination [31]. Between 2015 and 2020, the proportion of the population using safely managed drinking water services overall, on premises, available when needed, free of contamination and at basic level rose by 3, 4, 5, 3 and 2% to 30, 31, 59, 36 and 35%, respectively (Fig. 1). Although there was a rise in the aspects, coverage in all cases was below half and most countries of the region did not have data on the indicator, which showed that they were off-track in SDG 6. The proportion of the population that used limited services rose by 1% while those using unimproved water services and surface water reduced by 2 and 3%, respectively during the period of evaluation (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

(Source: Produced by authors)

Percentage population of SSA using safely managed drinking water services

Fig. 2

(Source: Produced by authors)

Proportion of the population using an improved drinking water source

The results showed that more than 50% of the SSA population had no access to safe drinking services and a large portion still used limited, unimproved and surface water drinking services, which is deemed to be prone to chemical and fecal matter contamination. The trend is attributable to poverty in the region where most of the population have low per capita income and there is less industrialization, which translates to reduced capacity to deal with endemic water pollution, unimproved infrastructure to supply and distribute water, substandard measures and techniques of water treatment to make it safe and inadequate storage facilities for treated water [32]. For this reason, poor SSA residents acquire water from unimproved, limited services and surface water sources that are considered affordable but highly vulnerable to contamination. The trend is replicated in other poor developing countries of the world including India [33], Nepal [34], Indonesia [35], Americas [36] and low- and middle- income countries of Africa [37]. Such poor regions just like SSA fall behind track to realize SDG 6 by 2030.

In Fig. 2, it is evident that the proportion of the population accessing improved water sources since 2015 were on a rising trend from 72 to 78% in 2020 for the entire SSA region. The proportion using non-piped improved sources rose by 5% from 38% while those using piped improved sources rose by 2% from 33%. The trend could be attributable to greater awareness on the need to use safe drinking water in SSA region as a prerequisite for enhanced public welfare and improved health. A study by Armah et al. [13] assessing the improvements of water access in SSA region from 1990 to 2015 made a similar observation and attributed the rise to improved water services to greater public awareness through the enactment of the MDGs and thereafter the SDGs.

Although there was greater access to improved drinking water sources in the region, disparities in access to improved drinking water sources in rural and urban areas were evident. More than 90% of urban residents had access to improved drinking water services while in rural areas, access ranged between 59 and 66% during the period of assessment. The disparities were attributable to poverty levels with rural areas being disfavored in water infrastructural developments and ability to pay for water services among the population unlike urban areas. Studies in Uganda [38], Eswatini [39], Nigeria [40], Tanzania [41] and Ghana [42] showed that factors such as socioeconomic status, educational levels, income levels and ability to afford water services resulted to rural–urban disparity in access to the resource. In urban areas, the population is better educated, has access to income through formal employment and can afford water compared to poor rural dwellers who rely on unimproved but cheap drinking water sources. Additionally, rural areas of SSA are expansive spatially due to the sparse distribution of the population, which would require greater financial and infrastructural investment to enhance access to improved water sources for all. Gomez et al. [43] made similar conclusions citing that the disperse nature of rural settings in developing countries of SSA complicates distribution and access to improved water sources unlike the case in urban areas that are densely populated.

In assessing the progress of target 6.2 on hygiene and sanitation in the evaluation period, two indicators were considered. These include the SSA population proportion using safely managed sanitation services and handwashing facilities between 2015 and 2020. The results were as shown in Figs. 3 and 4. According to the UNICEF/WHO Joint Monitoring Program ladder, safely managed sanitation services are used in the household exclusively and fecal matter is safely disposed for treatment and after which, handwashing with soap and water is done [44]. In basic services, improved toilets are used but fecal wastes are not disposed safely while in limited services, toilets are improved but shared by public/ communities. Unimproved services describe the use of pit latrines that are not fitted with slab and rely on composting to manage fecal waste. Areas without any sanitation facility use open defecation. Although with significant data gaps, it was established that between 2015 and 2020, the percentage population in SSA region using safely managed sanitation services rose from 19 to 21%, while those using basic and limited services rose from 11–12 and 18–19%, respectively (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3

(Source: Produced by authors)

Proportion of the population using safely managed sanitation services

Fig. 4

(Source: Produced by authors)

Proportion of the population with a handwashing facility at home in SSA between 2015 and 2020

The population using open defection reduced from 22 to 17% while those using unimproved sanitation services rose from 30 to 31% in the same evaluation period. Additionally, the population with no handwashing facilities and limited facilities reduced by 1 and 6% from 35 and 40%, respectively (Fig. 4). Individuals using basic sanitation services rose by 1% to 26% (Fig. 4). Without safely managed sanitation facilities, it is key to wash hands frequently with soap and clean water to prevent waterborne diseases [45]. From the obtained results, SSA region is on a dwindling trend or slow pace towards improving access to hygiene and sanitation facilities, which could be counterproductive to sustainability and economic growth due to the high etiology to diseases related to lack of such services, resultant health expenses incurred to manage the diseases and resultant deaths [46, 47]. The situation is compounded by the lack of safely managed and improved drinking services, where access to any form of drinking water precedes access to handwashing water. For this reason, along with poverty and lack of financial inclusion to develop sanitation and hygiene facilities in SSA region, there are only slight improvements in the proportion of the population accessing safely managed sanitation and handwashing facilities in their homes [45]. With inadequate sanitation and hygiene facilities compounded by limited access to safe drinking water, the transmission and prevalence of public health concerns and communicable diseases is growing in the region [15].

Of concern in assessing the progress in using sanitation and hygiene services in SSA region is the lack of adequate assessment data. Limited data is an indicator that countries of the region are off track in improving this indicator. In a study assessing sanitation and hygiene services in SSA’s health facilities between 2013 and 2018, the lack of data was attributable to slow policy actions to support ongoing efforts to improve access to such facilities [48]. The observed trend where about 20% of SSA population are still practicing open defecation in this study is also a concern. For significant progress to realizing SDG 6, one of the prerequisites is to eliminate open defection [49, 50]. In 10 countries of SSA region that practiced open defection and mostly had unimproved sanitation and no handwashing facilities, the progress to realize target 6.2 of SDG 6 was shown to be slow and unachievable by 2030 [49]. Apart from the high risk to waterborne diseases, open defecation was an indicator of low socioeconomic status in the region that exposed many females to the risk of sexual exploitation during the practice and especially in densely populated urban areas [50].

To assess the progress of target 3 of SDG 6 in SSA, the proportion of safely treated wastewater and water bodies with good ambient water quality are the two indicators that were considered. Using the 2017 to 2020 data, which was available for some countries, the results were as shown in Figs. 5 and 6. In SSA region, about 28% of the wastewater flow is safely treated (Fig. 4). The value was arrived at with many data gaps and could be even higher as many SSA countries have no track of wastewater generated and its treatment thereafter. In a study by Sato et al. [51] to analyze data on wastewater generation and treatment globally, only 3 of the 48 SSA countries had comprehensive data while 13 had incomplete data and 32 had no data at all. The UN-Habitat and WHO [52] report on the progress of wastewater treatment showed similar data gaps and noted that estimates of wastewater generated and treated in SSA region were unreliable since most of the populations in member countries were not connected to septic tanks, sewers and/ or sanitation facilities and the region had low levels of safe effluent treatment. With poor monitoring on wastewater production and treatment trends in the region, the population is more vulnerable to waterborne diseases and morbidities especially in children as a result of discharge of wastewater from industrial, municipal, agricultural, hospital and stormwater sources, which is a common practice in SSA and leads to pollution of land and freshwater resources [53]. Wang et al. [54] made similar indications citing that wastewater treated approaches in SSA region mainly based on conventional treatment techniques and stabilization pond systems are cost intensive but insufficient to promote access to safe water and basic sanitation.

Fig. 5

(Source: Produced by authors)

Proportion of wastewater flow that was safely treated between 2017 and 2020

Fig. 6

(Source: Produced by authors)

Proportion of water bodies with good ambient water quality in SSA countries

Developed SSA countries such as South Africa (61%) and Nigeria (48%) had a higher proportion of their wastewater treated compared to lower income countries such as Chad (2%), Central Africa Republic (2%), Niger (6%) and Malawi (8%) (Fig. 5). The trend could be because economically developed nations of SSA have better capacity to develop water infrastructure and improve the water quality monitoring and wastewater treatment unlike poorer nations. Similar sentiments were echoed by Onu et al. [54] that economically stable nations consistently monitored their water and wastewater treatment plant operations and provided economic instruments meant to encourage treatment of effluents and development of water infrastructure unlike poor nations and considering the capital investment required. In a study evaluating levels of wastewater treatment in 3 SSA nations, it was reported that their low economic status made the treatment levels unsustainable technically, economically, environmentally and sanitary wise [55].

The 2017–2020 data showed that SSA region had 71% of its water sources endowed good ambient water quality (Fig. 6). Although the value was reached at with data gaps, the results allude that the water quality from sources in reported countries was of good condition and needed protection through enhanced data collection and monitoring on their changes, prevention of discharge of untreated wastewater and better agricultural practices to prevent pollution in such resources [56]. Unlike the observed trend in this study where water quality of SSA resources is good, other authors disagree with the observation considering the acute paucity of data [57,58,59]. In their arguments, the authors noted that lack of data on water quality in the region means that monitoring was not done and the aspect is not considered in assessments on water security until pollution becomes an impediment to sustainable development. A progress report on indicator 6.3.2 by the UNEP [60] also suggested that water quality is a global problem including in SSA region where only 52.4% of its water resources were of good quality in 2020. Furthermore, the report noted that only 11.5, 31.2 and 9.7% of groundwater resources, rivers and lakes of the region were of good ambient quality in 2020, respectively. The quality of water resources is also spatially different based on the anthropic activities in a given country. In industrious countries such as Nigeria, only 13% of the resources were of good ambient water quality, which could be a result of human activities in the country that pose as a pollution threat. According to Ighalo and Adeniyi [61], the quality of both ground- and surface-water resources is poor in Nigeria due to mismanagement of effluents, production of landfill leachate from unsystematic disposal of solid waste and its interaction with water resources and gas and oil exploration and processing activities.

To assess the progress of indicator 6.4.1, water productivity levels that pointed to efficient water use to accomplish various economic activities was used. Water productivity was quantified as the financial value generated by an economy compared to the volume of water consumed (US$/m³). Between 2015 and 2019 and based on data estimated by AQUASTAT, water productivity of SSA region was 12.56, 12.43, 12.71, 12.87 and 13.09 US$/m³ in respective years. The value included all water uses including mining, agricultural, industrial and municipal uses. Although with acute data paucity, slight improvements in water productivity were evident from the available data and the need to improve irrigation efficiency during farming, reduce distribution losses of the commodity for municipal and industrial processes was to be prioritized [9]. Considering that not all countries of SSA relied on agriculture for their economic productivity (GDP), the reported values had uncertainties in their accuracy and there was need to monitor water use in all sectors contributing to economic growth in the region. To accurately monitor indicator 6.4.1, it is essential to avoid the confusion in terms used to define water productivity and its efficient use. Morita [62] made similar observations noting that water productivity was holistic and included all water uses, a variety of outputs, different efficiency measures, included non-water factors and aspects of water reuse while water use efficiency mainly considered irrigation efficiency without paying attention to other economic sectors that used the resource.

To assess water stress (indicator 6.4.2) in SSA region, the percentage freshwater withdrawals from available resources was reported from 2015 to 2019 based on data availability. Between 2015 to 2019, water stress levels of SSA were at 5.89, 5.98, 5.99, 6.09 and 6.1%, in respective order, which indicated that the region was not headed for a water crisis. However, the figure was not accurate as the summative value did not consider differences among countries of the region as Ortigara et al. [9] noted in a similar evaluation at a global level. SSA region has significant variations in water availability in the wetter northern areas compared to the southern nations, which are drier and prone to severe droughts [63]. Within nations and their catchments similar spatial differences in freshwater availability can occur. To ensure accurate monitoring of the indicator, it was key to disaggregate the data based on sub (county) and/or sub (basin) during assessment and consider areas endowed or not endowed with freshwater resources. Overreliance of the SSA region on rainfed farming rather than irrigation as noted by Emediegwu et al. [64] could also be attributable to the observed low water stress levels.

To assess progress in water governance of SSA region (target 6.5), two indicators were assessed. First, the degree of IWRM implementation based on the WHO and UNICEF [23] data was evaluated and results were as shown in Fig. 7. Overall, SSA has made substantive progress in enacting laws and policies and building institutions geared to IWRM. The UNEP [65] progress report on tracking indicator 6.5.1 made similar observations noting that the progress to implement IWRM in SSA was moderate and rated at 46% in 2020 unlike some countries of Latin America and Caribbean where implementation progress was rated as limited and had a lowed percentage. The rate of implementation differed country-wise. Countries such as Somalia, Comoros, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Equatorial Guinea and Liberia had implementation levels below 30% compared to South Africa that was rated at > 71% implementation degree. In South Africa unlike other countries, IWRM efforts are formalized in a strategic plan by the Department of Water and Sanitation [66], which outlines action plans and policies to support management of their watersheds even with the country’s endemic water stress and climate change uncertainties. The IWRM efforts of the SSA region have incremental results towards sustainable development [22]. However, Bishoge [14] encouraged the intensification of such efforts especially in countries where implementation degrees were low and moderate through involvement of all relevant stakeholders and frequent monitoring of IWRM progress in the region to encourage affirmative action and identify and work on the priority areas.

Fig. 7

Degree of IWRM implementation in SSA between 2017 and 2020 [23]

The proportion of transboundary basins with an operational arrangement on cooperative water management was the second indicator for target 6.4. Results of the progress of cooperation in SSA region between 2017 and 2020 and based on data available were as shown in Fig. 8. Although many countries had no data, findings showed that Southern African countries were very active in transboundary cooperation in water resources management unlike other SSA regions. The trend of cooperation in Southern African countries was attributable to the precognition by member nations of their endemic water stress issues and the need for collective action to manage their limited water resources. According to Dirwai et al. [67], the Southern African Development Community (SADC) initiated a formal water sharing system for their transboundary resources due to a common physical water scarcity problem in member nations. As such, other countries should emulate such initiatives since they are synergistic to economic development [68]. Although a progress report on indicator 6.4.2 by UNESCO [69], noted that SSA has made the second-best positive progress compared to other areas of the world in transboundary cooperative water resources management, there is need to accelerate the efforts and monitor progress made to take corrective measures as well as optimize cooperation to enhance climate resilience, eradicate poverty, promote sustainability, peace and security in SSA and other parts of the globe.

Fig. 8

Proportion of transboundary basin areas with an operational cooperation arrangement on water management [23]

The progress to realizing target 6.6a on international cooperation and capacity building was evaluated using two indicators. First (6.a1), the amount (in millions of constant 2020 US$) of official development assistance was used to assess the willingness of developed countries and donors to assist SSA region in capacity development for enhanced water and sanitation development. Reported assistance to the region for water resources development was shown to steadily rise from 2002 to 2019 with a few exceptions (Fig. 9). In 2019, SSA region received more than 9000 million of constant 2020 US$ as water and sanitation development aid. The assistance is useful in closing the water demand and supply gap especially in regions of poor and marginalized populations and more than 60% of the aid is channeled to improving water and sanitation facilities while about 15% is used in policy and administrative streamlining [8]. In using the assistance, the OECD [70], recommended on the need for water regulatory agencies and managers in SSA to be accountable, transparent and prudent in the use of the funds to gain trust from the donors and get positive outcomes from the assistance. Such propositions are made with past experiences noting that the money has been embezzled and served other purposes in addition to benefiting corrupt politicians [14]. The reduction of aid on water and sanitation development in the 2019–2020 period could be attributable to the shocks and effects resulting from the COVID-19 global pandemic, which resulted to an economic recession.

Fig. 9

(Source: Produced by authors)

Official development assistance for water and sanitation development in SSA from 2002 to 2020

To show progress on indicator 6.6b on community participation in water and sanitation management in SSA, two variables were considered. These include the number of countries with formal procedures in policy or law for community/water users’ participation in water projects and the level of participation by such communities/water users in such projects. Using the 2012–2021 data and based on data available, the number of SSA countries with clearly defined policies on community participation and the level of participation is shown in Fig. 10. Nationally, 41 countries had clear procedures in law or policy on water resources planning and management while 39, 41, 38, 42 and 40 countries had clear procedures on hygiene promotion nationally, sanitation promotion (in rural and urban areas), improvement (in rural and urban areas), respectively.

Fig. 10

Countries with clearly defined laws and policies on community participation in water projects and their level of participation in SSA region [23]

High level of community/ water users’ participation was also evident in aspects of water resources planning and management, hygiene promotion, sanitation improvement (in rural and urban areas), drinking water access improvement (in rural and urban areas of 12, 18, 17, 11, 17 and 10 countries, respectively. Findings showed that a considerable number of SSA countries clearly defined procedures in law and policy to engage communities in water projects although with data gaps. Several countries also recorded high participation of communities in such projects. A study by Shields et al. [71] observed a similar trend noting that community participation in water management had become a norm. Participation by the community and water users is key in reducing disparities in water access based on income and socioeconomic status and will aid in deconstructing gendered water management in SSA region [8]. Active engagement of the community also promotes a sense of ownership in addition to promoting water users’ involvement in actual implementation, planning, construction, decision-making and management of such initiatives [72]. Many countries lacked high-capacity participation by communities in water projects, which could be attributable to lack of human capacity, knowledge and awareness to empower water users and validate their voices in decision making on water projects. The lack of data on community participation in some countries was also inhibitory to sustainable water management and IWRM uptake. Bruns [73] also highlighted similar challenges and advised on the need for institutional artisanship in water management, which inculcates the enactment of policies and legislations to support community participation in water projects of SSA.

3.2 SDG 6 profile

Using the values of 8 indicators of SDG 6 drawn from the WHO and UNICEF [23] data as shown in Fig. 11 and the formula in Eq. 9, the SDG 6 profile index for SSA region was computed. The resultant index profile value was 31.7, which was rated as medium to low and indicated that implementation of the indicators was underway. The value was lower compared to that by Cai et al. [27] who computed the SDG 6 index profile for SSA to be 56.4. The differences could emerge based on the data sources for computing the various indicators. The value in the current study showed low to medium commitment by policymakers and water management regulators of SSA region to equally treat all SDG targets for integrated and interdependent output of the goal [29]. With such a tendency, it is tasking to establish the incremental progress towards realization of SDG 6 by 2030 as well as measure the risk associated with each of the indicators [27]. In this study, the baselines of I_6.1.1, I_6.3.2 and I_6.5.1 had near or better performance than the SDG_I score, which pointed out to the need to accelerate access to safe drinking water services, improve water quality and wastewater treatment and promote the management of transboundary water resources cooperatively as the keys to achieving sustainable water security in SSA region.

Fig. 11

Indicators used to compute the SDG 6 profile index and their respective values [23]

4 Lessons learnt from the progress analysis and recommendations

The analysis on the progress of SDG 6 targets and indicators in this study, provides a comprehensive status of SSA region towards realizing clean water and sanitation. The region is not on track in reference to meeting the goal evident from the reported limited access to safe drinking water and sanitation services, the lack of handwashing facilities with soap and water at residential places, existence of open defecation and limited treatment of wastewater. The trend is further compounded by the lack of consistent monitoring on the progress of all the targets and indicators in some SSA countries. In this analysis, at least 75% of all SSA countries lacked data on at least one or more of the evaluated indicators of SDG 6 targets, which points to a knowledge gap and inability to make general conclusions from the available data with certainty. Without data, it follows basic logic that decision-making, accountability on provided aid and national planning in SSA region will be difficult or nearly impossible towards improved water and sanitation access, provision, management and governance [9]. The trend also follows a lesson derived from the MDGs that we cannot manage what we do not quantify and whatever we measure has a great chance of being realized as noted by Gine [74]. Moving forward, there is need for greater investment in integrated data monitoring of all SDG 6 targets and indicators to apply measurable and specific action plans to help SSA countries reverse their current status on the goal in addition to allocating more financial and human resources to enable such plans [9, 33, 72].

Evidently, many SSA region countries are not ready to report on the progress of SDG 6 targets. Such a trend needs to be reversed urgently to avoid the sabotage of existent efforts towards clean water and sanitation access for all. The trend is attributable to the less developed nature of most SSA countries, which have limited data, insufficient capacity, human resources, no equipment to collect the data, limited financial resources and a substandard national infrastructure to transform data to information and report it [14, 59]. Basic information on river flows, water quality and climate characteristics was not collected infield due to these deficiencies. In countries where reporting is done, data available is scattered and in some instances incompatible to the SDG requirements. Such scenarios make standardization, acceptability, accountability, transparency and credibility difficult during reporting in addition to reducing the willingness to participate and invest in water and sanitation projects of the region by international parties [9]. To improve on data acquisition for all SDG indicators, the UN [75] made several suggestions. First there is a need to use international databases such as AQUASTAT to monitor newer indicators such as those on water productivity, IWRM, water quality and stress as well as water ecosystems that were not initially captured by the MDGs. Adequate funding is also appealed especially from international donors to facilitate data collection and processing rather than just focusing on novelty and technology in water and sanitation development projects. The use of earth observation incorporating geographical information systems and remote sensing to acquire live data and monitor water ecosystems and their quality is also recommended. To incorporate these ideas in data acquisition for SDG 6 target monitoring, institutional and technical capacity must be enhanced in SSA member countries [9, 14].

This analysis of SDG 6 progress in SSA region also indicated limitations in water governance particularly the lack of human resources, formal and informal institutions/ policy gaps to steer the realization of the goal as well as equity and inclusion deficiency in access of water and sanitation services. Limited community participation, lack of political will in transboundary cooperation and lack of accountability in use of provided aid all limited the management and development of water resources [9]. With poor water governance and policies to support water resources management, the economy will also be affected and mulled with disparities in water and sanitation access based on socioeconomic status and location of users (rural or urban), poor water productivity and use even with seasonal variability and overreliance on rainwater in SSA region even with climate change [76]. To improve water governance, SSA region must intensify the uptake of IWRM principles that precedence participatory and inclusive water management for collective and coordinated sharing of water and water resources-related information, financial transparency and accountability in the sharing and allocation of funds and collective plans/ policies and action to reverse its water challenges [77]. In addition, they should explore alternatives sources of funding including from the private sector other than overreliance on donations and grant [18]. This is especially so in countries that reported low and medium–low degree of IWRM as shown in Fig. 7. Additionally, countries of the region should use less water for more food production (irrigation efficiency), improve on industrial and municipal use of water, device alternative water sources through technology enhancement and research novelty in desalination of seawater, rainwater harvesting and reuse of wastewater after adequate treatment [33]. Such advances increase the economic value of water in addition to dealing with the apparent challenge of water scarcity in some SSA countries but require good governance and management supported by appropriate policies, application of advanced technology and research to apply integrated water management principles including water efficiency.

The progress report of this study also showed that indiscriminate water and sanitation access in SSA region is slowing the progress of water provision. On one hand, the urban areas have better water infrastructure, which translates to improved drinking water sources (Fig. 2) despite low community participation in water management (Fig. 10). On the other hand, the urban rich have better access to water and sanitation facilities compared to the informal settlements [38,39,40,41,42]. To reverse the situation, water regulatory agencies and international donors must invest more on water infrastructure funding in expansive and sparsely populated rural SSA as well [78]. Similarly, they must explore alternative freshwater sources for the urban informal settlers whose population is ever growing, monitor misuse of the resource, impose water taxes to regulate water use among the rich urbanites to enhance coverage and affordability for the poor informal settlers [33, 78].

Observations on indicator 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 progress showed that collection and treatment of generated wastewater was limited and most SSA countries lacked consistent data to monitor these indicators. The trend alluded to the generated water being released to the environment untreated, which could result to water, biodiversity and soil quality compromise. To this end, more treatment plants or facilities should be set up along with enhanced water recycling and reuse. Rugaimukamu et al. [79] made similar suggestions after observing that existent wastewater treatment plants were even using wrong technologies to monitor collection and generation of wastewater along with its management. Existent of open defecation in SSA was also shown as a major impediment to clean water and sanitation access. As such, governments of member countries should invest in constructing more household and public toilets in both rural and urban areas in addition to spreading awareness on the environmental and public health effects of the practice to affected communities [49, 50].

Overall, the SSA region must devise innovative solutions to the challenges impeding the progress of SDG 6 targets towards clean water and sanitation. Additionally, the region should increase water use efficiency to realize more economic gains with low water quantities. Such measures can be realized with consistent monitoring and measurement of, as well as, data collection and archiving on the various SDG 6 targets and indicators to enable the modelling of future scenarios and take the affirmative action needed. Lastly, SDG 6 progress should be integrated with the management of other SDGs to enable holistic realization of the 2030 agenda. This is because there are synergies between SDG 6 with SDGs on zero hunger, good health and wellbeing, clean energy, sustainable cities and communities and climate action and hence, progress in one is progress in all the others [80].

5 Conclusions

This study aimed at assessing the progress in implementing SDG 6 targets in SSA and using obtained results to make an SDG 6 profile index for the region. Findings showed that the calculated index was at 31.7, which indicated medium to low implementation progress. Furthermore, the region lagged behind in the provision of safe drinking water, sanitation services, access to hygiene services and in wastewater treatment as more than half of its population had no access to the indicators. The findings had implications on the general economic growth and sustainability of the region. Although the rate of progress differed from country to country, an overall challenge of access to reliable data for monitoring and evaluation was reported. The lack of data was inhibitory to accurate decision making, bettered planning, accountable management of water resources development funds and precise progress reporting. Moving forward, the study recommended on the need for appropriate legislations and funding to promote data collection, monitoring, archiving and sharing on SDG 6 indicators to enable corrective and transparent action on lagging indicators and focus on priority targets. Human and technological capacity development was also recommended to promote participatory and transboundary cooperation in water management, enable wastewater treatment and the creation of alternative sources of freshwater. Furthermore, enhanced water productivity in economic sectors was advocated for to optimize water resources economic value and supply water in areas facing acute shortage. For SSA to be water sustainable and secure, member countries must couple these efforts with better community empowerment, accurate data availability and use and better governance and accountability. All involved stakeholders must urgently join forces to correct the current state of SDG 6 due to its implications on sustainable development in the SSA region.