Are few data from the smaller developing nations and from the more developed countries. Lessons to be learned from reflecting on international monitoring include sometimes rapid and substantive evolution in response to pressures and opportunities: for example, in the data shift above; coping with incomplete information; that despite the needfor some `baseline’ situation, knowledge of that situation has been incomplete at the time of target adoption and has been retrospectively secured; and that indicators may serve a useful purpose even if they are an imprecise reflection of the situation. Monitoring itself has important impacts on goals and targets as well as vice versa. Thus, the MDG `benchmarks’–the definitions of what constitutes `improved water’ and `basic sanitation’–match ARQ-092 cost poorly to the MDG target wording (which incorporates notions of safety and sustainability), and were adopted because data were available. The interaction between goals and targets and their monitoring, and the evolution of monitoring alongside implementation are best recognized and interpreted rather than challenged and rejected. There needs to be enough continuity of methods to maintain comparability over time, but also the incorporation of new techniques as they become available for large-scale use, in parallel.rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil Trans R Soc A 371:………………………………………………(c) Progress according to joint monitoring programme/millennium development goals indicatorsMeasured progress towards the W S MDGs is summarized in table 1 [9]. Because the population of some countries has doubled in the past 25 years, the task of supplying water to additional people has often exceeded that of extending coverage of the original population, and information is expressed in several ways: increases in percentage coverage may be small even though more toilets may have been built than in the entire NS-018 supplier period to 1990 for example. Provision of toilets for the rich may vastly outstrip provision for the poor, and in some areas, notably India (but not Bangladesh), progress in the past 13 years has increased inequality (figure 1d), whereas improvements of domestic water supply have been more equitable, as in figure 1c, from WHO and UNICEF [9]. Extensive further data are provided in that publication down to country level. This wealth of material can be simply summarized: a great deal has been achieved, but the remaining task is huge. Moreover, `improved’ water and sanitation in many cases falls far short of reasonable expectation in that water may have to be carried to the household and may not be safe, and the `improved’ sanitation in figure 1d includes facilities shared between households that provide a lower level of access with potentially less hygienic facilities and lesser physical security for users, especially where facilities concerned are public. The period up to 2015 is characterized by an attempt to increase the construction of more rural water sources, particularly from groundwater, and to keep up coverage for increasing urban populations by a mixture of in-household piped water and standpipes. Sanitation attention has focused on provision and use of toilets at household level. By contrast, issues of reliability, continuous availability, provision to the poor, particularly of sanitation, water safety, systems for dealing with excreta beyond the household and equity, have been neglected. The way in which the difference in coverage.Are few data from the smaller developing nations and from the more developed countries. Lessons to be learned from reflecting on international monitoring include sometimes rapid and substantive evolution in response to pressures and opportunities: for example, in the data shift above; coping with incomplete information; that despite the needfor some `baseline’ situation, knowledge of that situation has been incomplete at the time of target adoption and has been retrospectively secured; and that indicators may serve a useful purpose even if they are an imprecise reflection of the situation. Monitoring itself has important impacts on goals and targets as well as vice versa. Thus, the MDG `benchmarks’–the definitions of what constitutes `improved water’ and `basic sanitation’–match poorly to the MDG target wording (which incorporates notions of safety and sustainability), and were adopted because data were available. The interaction between goals and targets and their monitoring, and the evolution of monitoring alongside implementation are best recognized and interpreted rather than challenged and rejected. There needs to be enough continuity of methods to maintain comparability over time, but also the incorporation of new techniques as they become available for large-scale use, in parallel.rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil Trans R Soc A 371:………………………………………………(c) Progress according to joint monitoring programme/millennium development goals indicatorsMeasured progress towards the W S MDGs is summarized in table 1 [9]. Because the population of some countries has doubled in the past 25 years, the task of supplying water to additional people has often exceeded that of extending coverage of the original population, and information is expressed in several ways: increases in percentage coverage may be small even though more toilets may have been built than in the entire period to 1990 for example. Provision of toilets for the rich may vastly outstrip provision for the poor, and in some areas, notably India (but not Bangladesh), progress in the past 13 years has increased inequality (figure 1d), whereas improvements of domestic water supply have been more equitable, as in figure 1c, from WHO and UNICEF [9]. Extensive further data are provided in that publication down to country level. This wealth of material can be simply summarized: a great deal has been achieved, but the remaining task is huge. Moreover, `improved’ water and sanitation in many cases falls far short of reasonable expectation in that water may have to be carried to the household and may not be safe, and the `improved’ sanitation in figure 1d includes facilities shared between households that provide a lower level of access with potentially less hygienic facilities and lesser physical security for users, especially where facilities concerned are public. The period up to 2015 is characterized by an attempt to increase the construction of more rural water sources, particularly from groundwater, and to keep up coverage for increasing urban populations by a mixture of in-household piped water and standpipes. Sanitation attention has focused on provision and use of toilets at household level. By contrast, issues of reliability, continuous availability, provision to the poor, particularly of sanitation, water safety, systems for dealing with excreta beyond the household and equity, have been neglected. The way in which the difference in coverage.
bet-bromodomain.com
BET Bromodomain Inhibitor
