Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 71

Progress on household

drinking water, sanitation


and hygiene I 2000-2017
SPECIAL FOCUS ON INEQUALITIES
Progress on household
drinking water, sanitation
Progress on household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene 2000-2017:
Special focus on inequalities
and hygiene I 2000-2017
ISBN: XXX-XX-XXX-XXXX-X
SPECIAL FOCUS ON INEQUALITIES
© United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and World Health Organization, 2019
All rights reserved. Permission is required to reproduce any part of this publication.

Requests for permission should be addressed to UNICEF, Division of Communication,


3 United Nations Plaza, New York 10017, USA (email: nyhqdoc.permit@unicef.org).

Suggested citation. Progress on household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene 2000-2017. Special focus on
inequalities. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and World Health Organization, 2019.

Photographs. Front cover: © UNICEF/UN0282190/Pirozzi; Table of contents: © UNICEF/UN0290924/Llaurado;


Back cover: © UNICEF/UN073097/Dicko; P6: © UNICEF/UNI189314/Gilbertson VII; P13: © UNICEF/UN0304111/Arcos;
P16: © UNICEF/UN0271298/Tremeau; P19: © UNICEF/UN0267916/Akhbar Latif; P23: © UNICEF/UN011915/Singh;
P24: © UNICEF/UN0199491/Noorani; P27: © UNICEF/UN057870/Chudeau; P30: © UNICEF/UN052143 Brazier;
P33: © UNICEF/UN0314042/Pudlowski; P36: © UNICEF/UN0291768/ Frank Dejongh;
P41: © UNICEF/UN0268445/Brown; P43: © UNICEF/UN0215371/Vishwanathan; P46: © UNICEF/UN0260388/Cherry;
P53: © UNICEF/UNI189338/Gilbertson VII Photo; P59: © UNICEF/UN048103/Nader; P62: © UNICEF/UN0267936/Akhbar Latif;
P66: © UNICEF/UN047279/Bradley; P71: © UNICEF/UN0139474/Prinsloo; P73: © UNICEF/UN0306322/Abdul;
P79: © UNICEF/UNI187091/Noorani; P80: © UNICEF/UN0267929/Akhbar Latif; P85: © UNICEF/UN0211984/Noorani.

General disclaimers. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not
imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WHO or UNICEF concerning the legal status of any
country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
Dotted and dashed lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement.

The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed
or recommended by WHO or UNICEF in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.
Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters.

The figures included in this report have been estimated by the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water
Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene (https://washdata.org) to ensure compatibility; thus, they are not necessarily the
official statistics of the concerned country, area or territory, which may use alternative rigorous methods.

All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization and UNICEF to verify the information
contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind,
either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader.
In no event shall the World Health Organization and UNICEF be liable for damages arising from its use.

Edited by Richard Steele. Design, layout and production by Cecilia Silva Venturini. Printed in New York, USA.
Table of contents
1 Highlights 5

Leave no one behind 6


Drinking water 7
Sanitation 8
Hygiene 9
2 Introduction 10
The 2030 Agenda: Leave no one behind 10
Localizing the SDGs: Setting national targets 11
Reducing inequalities: Metrics for assessing progress 12
3 Eliminating open defecation 14

4 Reducing inequalities in basic services 24


Drinking water 24
Sanitation 30
Hygiene 36
Leave no one behind: closing the gap between
44
richest and poorest
5 Reducing inequalities in safely managed services 46
Safely managed drinking water
46
Improved facility types
48
Accessible on premises
52
Available when needed
54
Water quality
56
Safely managed sanitation
60
Improved facility types
62
Safe management of excreta along the sanitation service chain
66
Non-sewered sanitation systems
67
Sewered sanitation systems
71

6 Strengthening monitoring 76
Core questions for households, schools and health care facilities 76
Drinking water quality 77
Safely managed on-site sanitation systems 78
Affordability 80
7 Annexes 82
Annex 1: Methods 82
Annex 2: Regional groupings 86
National estimates Annex 3.1: National drinking water estimates
(2000, 2017) Annex 3.2: National sanitation estimates 88
Annex 3.3: National hygiene estimates 106
Annex 4: Inequalities in basic services (2000, 2017 for water 126
and sanitation, latest available for handwashing) 128
Regional and Annex 5.1: Regional and global drinking water estimates 134
global estimates Annex 5.2: Regional and global sanitation estimates 136
(2000-2017) Annex 5.3: Regional and global hygiene estimates 138

4 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / TABLE OF CONTENTS SPECIAL ISSUE ON INEQUALITIES / TABLE OF CONTENTS 5
DRINKING WATER
Seven out of ten people used safely
2000-2017 In 2017
managed drinking water services in 2017
• The population using safely managed services
• 117 countries (and four out of eight SDG 100 4 2 Surface water

1. Highlights
increased from 61% to 71%. 6
regions) had estimates for safely managed services, 12 Unimproved
• Coverage of safely managed services increased 3
representing 38% of the global population. 3 Limited
in all SDG regions with estimates available. It rose 80 19
• 5.3 billion people used safely managed services. Basic
from 25% to 35% in Least Developed Countries. 20
An additional 1.4 billion used at least basic services. Safely managed
• Rural coverage of safely managed services 206 million people used limited services, 435 million
increased from 39% to 53%. The gap between

Population (%)
used unimproved sources, and 144 million still used 60
urban and rural areas decreased from 47 to 32 surface water.
percentage points.
• Eight out of ten people still lacking even basic
• 1.8 billion people gained access to at least basic 40 71
services lived in rural areas. Nearly half lived in
services. The population lacking basic services 61
Least Developed Countries.
Leave no one behind decreased from 1.1 billion to 785 million and the
• In 24 out of 90 countries with disaggregated 20
number of people collecting water directly from
data, basic water coverage among the richest wealth
surface water sources decreased from 256 to 144
The World Health Organization and United Nations Children’s The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development commits quintile was at least twice as high as coverage
million
among the poorest quintile. 0
Fund (WHO/UNICEF) Joint Monitoring Programme for UN member states to take bold and transformative steps • 20 out of 86 countries with disaggregated data
• 80 countries had >99% basic water coverage.
2000 2017
succeeded in halving the gap in basic service coverage
Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene (JMP) produces to ‘shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path’, One in three countries with <99% were on track to Global drinking water coverage,
between the richest and poorest wealth quintiles. FIGURE 1
achieve ‘nearly universal’ coverage by 2030.
internationally comparable estimates of progress on drinking ‘realize the human rights of all’, ‘end poverty in all its 2000-2017 (%)

water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and is responsible for forms’, and ensure ‘no one will be left behind’. The UN
global monitoring of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) General Assembly will conduct its first quadrennial review
Four SDG regions had estimates for safely managed drinking water in 2017
targets related to WASH. The JMP has recently published of progress in September 2019. This report assesses
1
global baseline reports on WASH in schools (2018) and progress in reducing inequalities in household WASH 100
8
2 1
5
3 1
2
1
8
1
4
3 1
5
2
2 7 6 7 7 Surface water
12 6 0 10 5 15 15
WASH in health care facilities (2019). This report presents services and identifies the populations most at risk of 19 1 1
26
14 1
4
10 7 Unimproved
5 22 38 1 15 15 3 Limited
updated national, regional and global estimates for WASH in being ‘left behind’. 80
18
34 25
3
Basic
32 26
households for the period 2000-2017. 26 13 15
Safely managed
13 40
60 20 6
2 9 8
9 1
100 100
95 93 30 29
34 90 92 83
40 55 81 84 26 25 80
74
28
60 56 52

20 41
35 35
27 25 26
18

0
2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017
Sub-Saharan Central and Latin America Europe and Oceania Eastern and Northern Australia and Least Landlocked Small Island
Africa Southern and the Northern South-Eastern Africa and New Zealand Developed Developing Developing
Asia Caribbean America Asia Western Countries Countries States
Asia
FIGURE 2 Regional drinking water coverage, 2000-2017 (%)

In 2017, 117 countries1 had estimates for safely managed drinking water services1 +çç

0-25
25-50
1 50-75
75-99
>99
Insufficient data
Not applicable

FIGURE 3 Proportion of population using safely managed drinking water services, 2017 (%)
1
The JMP tracks progress for 232 countries, areas and territories, including all United Nations Member States. Statistics in this report refer to countries, areas or territories.

6 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / HIGHLIGHTS SPECIAL ISSUE ON INEQUALITIES / HIGHLIGHTS 7
SANITATION HYGIENE
Four out of ten people used safely In 201712 Three out of five people Three SDG regions had estimates available for basic
2000-2017 In 2017 handwashing facilities in 2017
managed sanitation services in 2017 had basic handwashing
• The population using safely managed • 92 countries (and six out of eight SDG regions) had estimates • 60% of the global population had basic facilities in 2017
services increased from 28% to 45%. for safely managed services, representing 54% of the global 100 Open defecation handwashing facilities with soap and water
9 100 100
• Coverage of safely managed services population. 21 Unimproved available at home. No Facility 4 11
increased in all SDG regions with estimates • 3.4 billion people used safely managed services. An additional 9 Limited • 78 countries (and three out of eight SDG 18 Limited 20
30
available. 2.2 billion used at least basic services. 627 million people used 80 Basic regions) had estimates for basic handwashing Basic 12 37
8 80 80 41
limited services, 701 million used unimproved facilities, and 673 17 Safely managed facilities, representing 52% of the global 37
• Rural coverage of safely managed services
million still practised open defecation. population. Many high income countries lacked 22
increased from 22% to 43%, while the gap 5 data on hygiene.

Population (%)
between urban and rural areas decreased • Seven out of ten people who still lacked even basic services 60 29 60 28

Population (%)
60
from 14 to 5 percentage points. lived in rural areas. One third lived in Least Developed Countries. • 3 billion people still lacked basic handwashing 36

• 2.1 billion people gained access to at least • In 48 out of 90 countries with disaggregated data, basic 28 facilities at home: 1.6 billion had limited facilities 36
basic services and the population lacking basic service coverage among the richest wealth quintile was at least 40 lacking soap or water, and 1.4 billion had no 40 40 34
77
services decreased from 2.7 billion to 2 billion twice as high as coverage among the poorest quintile. facility at all.
58
• Nearly three quarters of the population of 60
• The population practising open defecation • 51 countries had >99% basic sanitation coverage. One in four
20 45 Least Developed Countries lacked handwashing 20 51
halved from 1.3 billion to 673 million. 23 countries with <99% were on track to achieve ‘nearly universal’ 20 34
28 facilities with soap and water. 25 28
countries reduced open defecation rates coverage by 2030.
below 1% and were classed as reaching ‘near • Fewer than one in three ‘high burden’ countries with >5% • In 51 out of 82 countries with disaggregated
0 data, basic handwashing coverage among the 0
elimination’. open defecation were on track to achieve ‘near elimination’ 0
2000 2017 2017 Sub-Saharan Central Northern Least Landlocked Small Island
• 9 out of 86 countries with disaggregated (<1%) of open defecation by 2030. richest wealth quintile was at least twice as high Africa and Africa and Developed Developing Developing
data succeeded in halving the gap in basic as coverage among the poorest quintile. Southern Western Countries Countries States
• Only one in five countries with >1% open defecation were on Global sanitation coverage, Global handwashing Asia Asia
service coverage between the richest and FIGURE 4 FIGURE 7
track to achieve ‘near elimination’ of open defecation among 2000-2017 (%) coverage, 2017 (%)
poorest wealth quintiles.
2
Insufficient data were available to estimate FIGURE 8 Regional handwashing coverage, 2017 (%)
poorest rural wealth quintile by 2030.
regional and global trends for hygiene.

Six SDG regions had estimates for safely managed sanitation services in 2017 In 2017, 78 countries had estimates for basic handwashing facilities

100 2 4 2 4 2
1 Open defecation 0-25
10 9 7 1 11 7
6 5 13 14 25-50
20
8 4 7
20 18 19 Unimproved
32 11 5 28 21 35 37
5 28
6 26 15
15 Limited 50-75
80 5
39
58 75-99
6 9 Basic
21 8 > 99
5 52 Safely managed
31 50 45 12 32 30
60 Insufficient data
56 51 22
29 33 Not applicable
29
62
10 11
40 18 4 15 7 69
72 76
15 61 69 4 6 66
10
12 64 61
20 8 38 41
38 32 30 25 34 34
31 26 22
15 18 12
0
2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017
Sub-Saharan Latin America Northern Eastern and Australia Europe and Oceania Central and Least Landlocked Small Island
Africa and the Africa and South-Eastern and New Northern Southern Developed Developing Developing
Caribbean Western Asia Asia Zealand America Asia Countries Countries States

FIGURE 5 Regional sanitation coverage, 2000-2017 (%)


FIGURE 9 Proportion of population with basic handwashing facilities at home, 2017 (%)

In 2017, 96 countries had estimates for safely managed sanitation


Central and South Asia achieved the largest reduction in open defecation since 2000
0-25 30
25-50
50-75 20
75-99 20 20
18 19
> 99
10 14
Insufficient data
3
3 2 7 9
Not applicable 0 0 4
0
Open defecation in 2017 (%)

Australia and Europe and Eastern and Latin America Northern Sub-Saharan Central and Small Island Least Landlocked
New Zealand Northern South-Eastern and the Africa and Oceania Africa Southern Developing Developed Developing World
America Asia Caribbean Western Asia Asia States Countries Countries
3
Reduction in open defecation 2000-2017 (% pt)
0
0 0 -1 13 17 13
4 7 6 3 18
20
39
40

FIGURE 6 Proportion of population using safely managed sanitation services, 2017 (%)
FIGURE 10 Proportion of population practising open defecation in 2017, and percentage point change, 2000-2017 (%)

8 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE: 2000–2017 / HIGHLIGHTS SPECIAL ISSUE ON INEQUALITIES / HIGHLIGHTS 9
sanitation and hygiene (4.a.1). Goal 3 aims to ‘ensure To track progress in reducing inequalities, the 2030 Agenda
healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages’. specifies that ‘SDG indicators should be disaggregated,
It includes a target for achieving universal health coverage where relevant, by income, sex, age, race, ethnicity,
(3.8) which focuses on access to quality essential health migratory status, disability and geographic location or other

2. Introduction
care services and implies that all health care facilities should characteristics’. Governments are expected to determine the
have basic WASH services. most relevant dimensions of inequality in WASH services and
develop mechanisms to identify and monitor the situation
The JMP has recently established global baseline estimates of disadvantaged groups. ‘Leave no one behind’ implies that
for WASH in schools and WASH in health care facilities in addition to tracking overall rates of progress on WASH
(Box 1). This report provides an update on progress in services governments should also focus on closing the gaps
The World Health Organization and United Nations integrated and indivisible to balance the social, economic and reducing inequalities in WASH services at the household in services between disadvantaged groups and the rest of the
Children’s Fund (WHO/UNICEF) Joint Monitoring environmental dimensions of sustainable development. The level between 2000 and 2017. It follows on and supersedes population (Figure 11).
Programme for Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene 2030 Agenda commits UN member states to take bold and the 2017 report Progress on drinking water, sanitation and
(JMP) produces internationally comparable estimates of transformative steps to ‘shift the world onto a sustainable hygiene: 2017 update and SDG baselines4. This report assesses national, regional and global progress
national, regional and global progress on drinking water, and resilient path’, seeks to realize the human rights of all, to in reducing inequalities in WASH services at the household
sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and is responsible for achieve gender equality and the empowerment of women and level. It focuses on the following longstanding WASH sector
global monitoring of the Sustainable Development Goal girls, and ensure ‘no one will be left behind’. It is an ambitious Localizing the SDGs: Setting national targets objectives, which are reflected in the global SDG targets and
(SDG) targets related to WASH. The JMP uses service universal agenda to be implemented by all countries and indicators related to WASH:
ladders to track the progressive reduction of inequalities in stakeholders in partnership. The 2030 Agenda states that the SDGs and targets are 1. Ending open defecation
levels of service between and within countries. This report ‘integrated and indivisible, global in nature and universally 2. Reducing inequalities in basic water, sanitation
presents updated national, regional and global estimates The SDG goals include several targets that aim to applicable, taking into account different national realities, and hygiene services
for WASH in households for the period 2000-2017. progressively reduce inequalities related to WASH (Table 1). capacities and levels of development and respecting 3. Reducing inequalities in safely managed water
Goal 1 aims to ‘end poverty in all its forms everywhere’ national policies and priorities’. The global targets are and sanitation services
and includes a target for universal access to basic services considered aspirational, with each government setting
(1.4). Goal 6 aims to ‘ensure availability and sustainable Achieving universal targets requires faster progress among
The 2030 agenda: Leave no one behind its own national targets ‘guided by the global level of
disadvantaged groups
management of water and sanitation for all’ and includes ambition but taking account of national circumstances’3
Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable targets for universal access to safe drinking water (6.1), and ‘building on existing commitments and in accordance
100

Development3 is described as a plan of action for people, sanitation and hygiene (6.2). Goal 4 aims to ‘ensure with international human rights standards for the benefit of

Proportion of population (%)


80

planet and prosperity. It comprises 17 Sustainable inclusive and equitable quality education and promote all’5. Governments are expected to localize the global SDG
Development Goals and 169 global targets. These are lifelong learning opportunities for all’. It includes targets for targets related to WASH and set their own national targets
60

3
Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, United
upgrading education facilities to provide safe and inclusive for progressively reducing inequalities in services. 40
Nations General Assembly Resolution, A/RES/70/1, 21 October 2015 <https:// learning environments, including basic drinking water,
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld> Advantaged
4
Progress on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene: 2017 update and SDG 20
Disadvantaged
baselines. Geneva: World Health Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund,
July 2017 <https://washdata.org/report/jmp-2017-report-final> 0
SDG global targets SDG global indicators 5
United Nations, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable 2015 2020 2025 2030
Development, UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/70/1, 21 October
6.1 By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and 6.1.1 Proportion of population using safely managed drinking 2015 (Paragraph 55), <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/ FIGURE 11 Illustration of progressive reduction of inequalities between
affordable driking water for all water services transformingourworld> advantaged and disadvantaged groups

6.2 By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable 6.2.1 Proportion of population using a) safely managed
sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying sanitation services and b) a hand-washing facility with soap and
special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in water Box 1: JMP global baseline estimates for WASH in schools and health care facilities
vulnerable situations
1.4 By 2030, ensure all men and women, in particular the poor 1.4.1 Proportion of population living in households with access In 2016 In 2016
and vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources as well to basic services (including access to basic drinking water, basic
• 69% of schools had basic • 74% of health care facilities
as access to basic services... sanitation and basic handwashing facilities)
drinking water services had basic water services
• 66% of schools had • 21% of health care facilities
4.a Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, 4.a.1 Proportion of schools with access to... (e) basic drinking basic sanitation services had no sanitation service
disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, water, (f) single-sex basic sanitation facilities, and (g) basic • 53% of schools had basic • 16% of health care facilities
inclusive and effective learning environments for all handwashing facilities hygiene services had no hygiene service
• 27% of health care facilities in Least
Developed Countries had basic health
3.8 Achieve universal health coverage (UHC), including financial [Proportion of health care facilities with basic WASH services] care waste management services
risk protection, access to quality essential health care services,
• Only four countries had sufficient data to
and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential
estimate basic environmental cleaning
medicines and vaccines for all
services in health care facilities

TABLE 1 SDG global targets and indicators related to WASH

10 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / INTRODUCTION SPECIAL ISSUE ON INEQUALITIES / INTRODUCTION 11
Reducing inequalities: Metrics for assessing progress Box 3: Dimensions of inequality in WASH services

The JMP has established several metrics for assessing Full realization of the SDG targets, which aim to ‘end’ open
The human rights to safe water and sanitation prohibit Socio-economic groups
progress in reducing inequalities in WASH, which are used defection and achieve ‘universal access’ to WASH ‘for all’, discrimination on the grounds of ‘race, colour, sex, language, Household surveys often divide the population into wealth
throughout this report (Box 2). Since the 2017 progress will be a challenge for all countries. While JMP estimates religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, quintiles based on income or assets, but water and sanitation
property, birth, disability or other status’. Where disaggregated should ideally be excluded from the wealth index when analysing
update, the JMP global database on inequalities has been are based on the best available national data, there are
data are available, it is possible to identify evidence of inequalities in WASH. Household survey data are often
substantially expanded. It now includes service level and inherent uncertainties in all national statistics. discrimination based on geographic, socio-economic or disaggregated by the level of education of the household head, by
facility type estimates disaggregated by wealth quintile6 individual characteristics, but the combination of factors that ethnicity, religion or language and by migratory status, but these
prevents people from accessing WASH services is often highly may not be the most relevant stratifiers for analysing inequalities
and sub-national region for nearly 100 countries, enabling For this reason, the JMP now classifies countries estimated
context specific. in WASH services.
further analysis of trends in inequalities within countries. to have achieved >99% service coverage as ‘nearly
Box 3 summarizes the main dimensions of inequality that universal’ and countries estimated to have achieved <1% Geographic location Individual characteristics
Most data sources in the JMP global database disaggregate rural WASH data are typically collected at the household level, which
should be considered in national or sub-national WASH open defecation as ‘near elimination’. Furthermore, the means it is not possible to routinely analyse intra-household
and urban areas, but national definitions vary, and may not be
monitoring systems. JMP recognizes that the situation of small populations (such directly comparable. Some sources also disaggregate sub-national inequalities. However, many household surveys collect
as ethnic minorities and indigenous groups) is not always regions at the first or second administrative level, but boundaries information on the time spent collecting water and whether
change, making it difficult to analyse trends. Very few sources sanitation facilities are shared with other households, both of
The JMP is also responsible for assessing the achievement of reflected in disaggregated national statistics. It recommends which disproportionately affect women and girls, older people,
routinely distinguish peri-urban area or informal settlements.
international targets at national, regional and global levels. that all countries take steps to identify locally disadvantaged Specific geographic areas may be classed as remote or affected by and those with disabilities. Some surveys now record the age and
groups and establish alternative mechanisms for collecting conflict/disaster/diseases, but definitions vary, and data are more sex of the individual primarily responsible for water collection and
6
The JMP wealth quintile estimates for WASH are calculated using a customized likely to be unavailable for these areas. ask women and girls additional questions about specific needs
wealth index that excludes WASH variables. data to ensure they are not left behind. relating to menstrual hygiene management.

Box 2: JMP metrics for assessing progress in reducing inequalities in WASH


Rural sanitation trends

Service levels: The JMP uses ladders for global monitoring of inequalities in service levels. The service
100 Open defecation
18 Unimproved
36 Limited

ladders have been updated for SDG monitoring and include information on both the types of facilities
80
Basic
15 Safely managed

people use and the levels of service provided. They are used in this report to visualize both status and
60 7
24
17
4

trends in inequalities in service levels at global, regional, national and sub-national levels. For example,
40

14

Chart A shows global trends in rural sanitation between 2000 and 2017.
20 43
22

0
2000 2017
CHART A

Coverage vs population: Estimates can be expressed as either the proportion of the population with
FIGURE A
2 2 2 1 Surface water
2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Unimproved

WASH services or the number of people with services, and these metrics are used interchangeably in
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Limited
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Basic
5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Safely managed
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

JMP reports. While service coverage is a useful metric for comparing progress between and within
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
2 2 2 2 2 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

countries, it is equally important to consider the total number of people served. This is particularly
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

important in countries experiencing rapid population growth where large numbers of people are gaining
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

access, but service coverage may be stagnating or decreasing. For example, Chart B shows the change
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

in the absolute numbers of people with each level of water service in urban areas in 2000 and 2017.
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

CHART B
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Coverage gaps: The JMP uses various charts to visualize inequalities in coverage between and within
Inequalities in basic hygiene

Global Regions Countries Urban/Rural Wealth Sub-national


quintiles regions

countries. ‘Equity plots’ are used in this report to visualize inequalities in open defecation and basic
100

WASH services, which underlie global, regional and national averages. A small number of countries
80 Northern Aldhalae
Africa and Richest
Western Asia Urban
using basic hygiene services (%)
Proportion of the population

World

have disaggregated data available on inequalities in service levels. The most commonly available
60

Yemen

40

disaggregations in national data sources are by residence (rural/urban), sub-national region (state/
Rural

20 Poorest

province/district) and wealth quintiles (poorest, poor, middle, rich, richest). For example, Chart
Mareb

C shows global, regional and national coverage of basic hygiene facilities alongside sub-national
To be completed

CHART C
FIGURE XX
Note: Sub-national inequalities for Yemen 2013

inequalities within Yemen.


Bolivia
(Plurinational
Rural

Trends in coverage gaps: The JMP database on inequalities now includes estimates of trends in service
State of)
100
95

levels and facility types by wealth quintile, which enables comparison of the relative rates of progress by
87
80 80

different wealth groups over time. This report includes analysis of rates of progress among the richest
70 69

60

and the poorest quintiles and whether the ‘gap’ in service coverage is increasing or decreasing in those 40 37

countries where disaggregated sub-national data are available. For example, Chart D shows changes in
29
22
20

the gap in basic water coverage between the richest and poorest rural quintiles in the Plurinational State 0
2000 2017 2000 2017
CHART D
of Bolivia and Haiti between 2000 and 2017.

Progress towards target coverage: The JMP is also responsible for assessing the achievement of 8

7
X COUNTRIES ARE ON

international targets at national, regional and global levels. The global SDG targets aim to ‘end’ open
6 TRACK TO ELIMINATE
OPEN DEFECATION BY 2030
5

defection and achieve ‘universal access’ to WASH ‘for all’. Based on current coverage and annual rates
PROGRESS IS TOO SLOW
IN X COUNTRIES TO
3
ELIMINATE OPEN
DEFECATION BY 2030
2

of change since 2000, the JMP classifies countries as being on or off track to achieve >99% service
1

-1

coverage or <1% open defecation by 2030. For example, Chart E shows current and required rates of
-2 OPEN DEFECATION IS
INCREASING IN X COUNTRIES

CHART E
-3

progress to achieve ‘near elimination’ of open defecation by 2030.


-4
0 20 40 60 80 100

12 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / INTRODUCTION SPECIAL ISSUE ON INEQUALITIES / INTRODUCTION 13
Rates of
Rates of reduction
reductionininopen
opendefecation
defecationvary widely
vary between
widely countries
between in SDG
countries regions
in SDG regions

Sub-Saharan Central and Eastern and Northern Africa Oceania Latin America and
Africa Southern Asia South-Eastern Asia and Western Asia the Caribbean
100 100 100 100 100 100

Cambodia

3. Eliminating open defecation 80 Ethiopia 80

Nepal
80 80 80 80

60 60 60 60 60 60

Ending open defecation has been identified as a top priority for Between 2000 and 2017, open defecation rates declined Sudan
Kiribati
reducing global inequalities in WASH. It is explicitly referenced in all SDG regions except Oceania. While Europe and
in SDG target 6.2 and closely associated with wider efforts to North America and Australia and New Zealand have
40 40 40 40 40 40
end extreme poverty by 2030. Since 2000, the global rate of already achieved ‘near elimination’ (<1%), in all other
open defecation has decreased from 21% to 9% (0.7 percentage SDG regions at least 1% of the population still practised Bolivia
(Plurinational State of)
points per year). The 673 million people still practising open open defecation in 2017. Figure 13 shows how national
defecation in 2017 were increasingly concentrated in a small rates of open defecation have changed between 2000 and
number of countries, and these will need to be the primary 2017. The largest reductions in each SDG region were 20 20 20 20 20 20

focus of efforts to end open defecation by 2030. recorded by Ethiopia, Nepal, Cambodia, Sudan, Kiribati
and the Plurinational State of Bolivia, but the chart also
Between 2000 and 2017, the number of countries where shows that countries with similar starting points have
at least 1% of the population practised open defecation achieved very different rates of reduction. Countries that 0 0 0 0 0 0

decreased from 108 to 81, while the number of ‘high burden’ had already reduced open defecation below 25% by 2000 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017

countries with rates of more than 5% decreased from 79 to generally progressed more slowly, reflecting the challenges
61. In 2017, these 61 ‘high burden’ countries were home to a associated with fully realizing the target of ‘elimination’. 50–100 25–50 5–25 1–5 <1 Country with greatest reduction in each region
combined population of 3.2 billion (Figure 12).

FIGURE 13
FIGURE 13 Proportion
Proportion of population
of population practising
practising open defecation,
open defecation by SDG
by country and country and
region, SDG region,
2000-2017 (%) 2000-2017 (%)

In 61 high burden countries more than 5% of the population practised open defecation in 2017 Since 2000, 16 countries have reduced open defecation by more than 20 percentage points

Since 2000, 16 countries have Kiribati 20


reduced open defecation by Indonesia 23
more than 20 percentage points Angola 23

Sao Tome and Principe 23

FIGURE 14 Percentage point decrease Mauritania 23


in proportion of population
Burkina Faso 25
practising open defecation,
2000-2017 (%) Sudan 27

Pakistan 30

Cabo Verde 31

Somalia 31

Mozambique 32

50-100 Lao People's Democratic Republic 41


25-50 Nepal 45
5-25
India 47
1-5
<1 Cambodia 53
Insufficient data Ethiopia 57
Not applicable
0 20 40 60
Reduction in population practising open defecation 2000–2017 (% pt)
FIGURE 12 Proportion of population practising open defecation, 2017 (%)

FIGURE 14 Percentage point decrease in proportion of population practising open defecation 2000–2017 (%)

14 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / ELIMINATING OPEN DEFECATION SPECIAL ISSUE ON INEQUALITIES / ELIMINATING OPEN DEFECATION 15
Central and Southern Asia accounts for nearly three quarters of the reduction in the population practising open defecation

Other regions

a
meric
in A e
Lat and thean
ibb
ran Car
aha a
S ic
b- Afr

Mex
Su

Bra

ico
zil
Et
ia

hi
As

op
ia
rn
Vie

ste
tN
am

-Ea
outh
Chin
a

al and Southern Asia


Eastern and S
Reduction in
Indonesia open defecation
India
696 million
l
Nepa

Centr
esh
glad
Ban

n
ta
kis
Pa

Oceania
Northern
nd and Wes Africa
rn a sia tern
ste Asia
Ea tern A
as
-E
uth
So

Myan
mar
Ca ina

a
Bu

eri
me Fa
rk
Za

Nig
ro so
m

on
bi
A total of 16 countries reduced open defecation by over Central and Southern Asia accounted for three quarters of To
go
a
Gh
20 percentage points, including five countries by over this reduction (Figure 15). However, over the same period, ana

33 percentage points, and two countries by over 50 39 countries recorded increases, totaling 49 million people. Benin

percentage points (Figure 14). Since 2000, one third of Most of these countries were in Sub-Saharan Africa, which Increase in Madagascar
open defecation
the population of Nepal and the Lao People’s Democratic has experienced rapid population growth since 2000. blic
United Repuia
Republic, over half of the population of Cambodia and
of Tanzan 49 million
Ethiopia, and nearly half of the population of India The net reduction in the global population practising open
have stopped practising open defecation. This not only defecation decreased by 647 million between 2000 and Ni
ge
r
represents a significant reduction in inequality but also a 2017. Countries in Central and South Asia recorded the

ad
Ch
largest net reduction of 496 million. Eastern and South

of the Congo
Democratic
transformational shift in social norms and public health in

Republic
those countries. Eastern Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean achieved
net reductions of 97 million and 36 million respectively, FIGURE 15 Change in number of
people practising open
Between 2000 and 2017, 91 countries reduced open while Sub-Saharan Africa reduced open defecation by 5 defecation, by country Sub-Saharan Africa
and region, 2000-2017
defecation by a combined total of 696 million people with million people. (millions)

16 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / ELIMINATING OPEN DEFECATION SPECIAL ISSUE ON INEQUALITIES / ELIMINATING OPEN DEFECATION 17
Box 4: Different metrics for open defecation

The JMP calculates the proportion of the population practising Many people live in communities where at least one household still
open defecation based on responses to household surveys, which practises open defecation National sanitation programmes use different definitions and criteria
typically ask, ‘What type of sanitation facility do members of for judging whether communities should be declared ‘ODF’. In addition
your household mainly use?’ The concept of ‘Open Defecation Maldives 3 Household open defecation to eliminating the practice of open defecation in the entire community,
Free’ (ODF) communities implies that every member of every Thailand 4 Community open defecation they may require that both household and institutional latrines are
household uses hygienic sanitation facilities all the time, but hygienic and offer privacy, or that a handwashing facility is nearby,
Paraguay 1 10
very few countries have nationally representative data on the with water and soap available. Sometimes, more stringent criteria are
Mexico 1 8
behaviour of individual household members. In the recent WASH applied relating to the safe containment of faeces, storage of drinking
Burundi 2 43
NORM survey in Nigeria, 76% of households reported at least water, disposal of grey water, management of solid waste, and disposal
one household member using some kind of sanitation facility, but South Africa 2 19 of child faeces.
only 61% reported all members using sanitation facilities, and just Rwanda 3 53

16% reported all members of all households in their community Philippines 5 28 Child faeces are highly infective. Information on disposal methods
using facilities (Figure 16). A similar pattern is observed in data Malawi 5 63 is often collected in household surveys and reported separately
from other countries which show the proportion of the population 5 15
to statistics on open defecation (Figure 18). Practices vary across
Colombia
living in clusters where at least one other household practises countries, but the most appropriate methods of disposal are
Uganda 6 48
open defecation is often much higher than the proportion of the depositing or rinsing the child’s stools into an improved toilet,
Guatemala 6 46
population practising open defecation themselves (Figure 17). or burying them. Co-disposal of child faeces with solid waste is
Marshall Islands 8 42 generally not considered appropriate, unless solid waste management
Sanitation coverage is lower when considering everyone in the Congo 9 49 systems effectively minimize the risk of humans being exposed to
household or everyone in the community Indonesia 9 48
United Republic
10 55
76% of Tanzania
Myanmar 11 55
At least one household member
uses sanitation facilities Mali 11 43 Child faeces are often disposed of in toilets or latrines, or with solid waste
Pakistan 12 50
Maldives 2017
Senegal 12 51 Philippines 2017
Albania 2018
Afghanistan 13 47 Mexico 2015
Iraq 2018
Guinea 13 44 South Africa 2016
Bolivia (Plurinational Belize 2015
16 42
State of) Chad 2015
Nepal 16 60 Mauritania 2015
Paraguay 2016
61% Sierra Leone 17 59 Timor-Leste 2016
Lao People's Democratic Republic 2017
All household members Ghana 19 60 Angola 2016
use sanitation facilities Benin 2018
Côte d'Ivoire 22 61 Guatemala 2015
India 2016
Nigeria 23 51 Afghanistan 2015
Marshall Islands 2017
Timor-Leste 24 74 Pakistan 2018
Ethiopia 2016
Lao People's 24 64 Thailand 2016
Democratic Republic
Nepal 2016
16% Zimbabwe 24 67 Armenia 2016
Indonesia 2017
Haiti 25 76 Tajikistan 2017
All members of Côte d’Ivoire 2016
Angola 27 52
the community Myanmar 2016
Senegal 2017
use sanitation Ethiopia 33 90 Guinea 2016
facilities Mauritania 39 81
Nigeria 2017
Zimbabwe 2015
Solomon Islands 57 82 Turkmenistan 2016
Mali 2015
Benin 58 90 Congo 2015
Sierra Leone 2017
Chad 69 91 Haiti 2017
United Republic of Tanzania 2016
Burundi 2017
FIGURE 16 Use of sanitation facilities by at least one household 0 20 40 60 80 100 Uganda 2016
member, all household members, and all community Malawi 2016
members, Nigeria WASH NORM Survey, 2018 (%) Rwanda 2015

Note: ‘Community’ estimated based on a proxy of 0 20 40 60 80 100


census enumeration area FIGURE 17 Proportion of population practising open defecation
and proportion living in communities where at least one Toilet or latrine Buried Thrown into garbage Other
household practises open defecation, selected national
households surveys, 2015-2018 (%)
FIGURE 18 Methods of child faeces disposal among populations with children under five, by country (%)

18 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / ELIMINATING OPEN DEFECATION SPECIAL ISSUE ON INEQUALITIES / ELIMINATING OPEN DEFECATION 19
In 2017, open defecation was still practised by 18% of the Even fewer countries are on track in rural areas, and Some countries have made good progress in reducing areas, there was still a 24 percentage point gap between the
rural population and 1% of the urban population. Nine out of just one in five are on track to eliminate open defecation inequalities in open defecation, as illustrated in Figure 20. richest and poorest in 2017. Figure 21 compares the current
ten open defecators lived in rural areas, and poorer people among the poorest rural wealth quintile. Efforts to end Between 2000 and 2017, open defecation rates decreased annual rate of reduction and the required rate of reduction to
were much more likely to practise open defecation. Figure 19 open defecation by 2030 will therefore need to be targeted from 21% to 9% globally and from 7% to 2% in Eastern achieve <1% open defecation by 2030, among the 54 ‘high
shows the current open defecation status among countries primarily at rural populations and particularly at the rural and South-Eastern Asia. Over the same period, Viet Nam burden’ countries with trend data available from 2000-2017.
with >1% of the population practising open defecation in poor. Nepal is one of the few countries which is on track not only reduced national rates of open defecation from It shows that less than one in three countries are on track to
2017, and the percentage point change per year between to achieve ‘near elimination’ among the poorest in rural 18% to 3% but also significantly reduced the ‘gap’ in open achieve <1% open defecation. Furthermore, if current trends
2000 and 2017. Assuming current rates of progress continue, areas where open defecation has been reduced by 4.6 defecation between urban and rural areas and between continue, more than half of these countries are expected to
less than half are on track to achieve ‘near elimination’ of percentage points per year since 2000. the richest and poorest wealth quintiles in urban areas. have more than 5% open defecation in 2030 and ten countries
open defecation (<1%) nationally by 2030. But while substantial progress has also been made in rural are expected to have open defecation rates of more than 25%.

Few countries are on track to achieve ‘near elimination’ of open defecation in rural areas and among the poorest by 2030 At current rates of reduction, over half of high burden countries will still have >5% open defecation in 2030
8 8 8
6
7 7 7 ARR 2000-2017 Solomon Islands 0.2 4.1

>50%
30 COUNTRIES 28 COUNTRIES 14 COUNTRIES Chad
Annual rate of reduction, 2000-2017

6 6 6 0.2 5.1
ARE ON TRACK ARE ON TRACK ARE ON TRACK
Required ARR 2017-2030 Niger 0.9 5.1
5 5 5
Percentage points per year

Nepal
Liberia 0.9 3.0
4 4 4
Madagascar 0.0 3.4
PROGRESS IS PROGRESS IS PROGRESS IS

25-50%
3 3 Nepal 3 Burkina Faso 1.5 3.5
TOO SLOW IN Nepal TOO SLOW IN TOO SLOW IN Sao Tome and Principe 1.4 3.6
2 30 COUNTRIES 2 35 COUNTRIES 2 39 COUNTRIES
Togo 0.6 3.6
1 1 1 Namibia 0.4 3.7
Benin 0.8 4.1
0 0 0
Cameroon 0.0 0.5
-1 -1 -1
OPEN DEFECATION IS OPEN DEFECATION IS OPEN DEFECATION Congo 0.0 0.6
-2 INCREASING IN 10 COUNTRIES -2 INCREASING IN 12 COUNTRIES -2 IS INCREASING IN 13 COUNTRIES Myanmar 0.0 0.6
Mongolia 0.4 0.7
-3 -3 -3
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 United Republic of Tanzania 0.0 0.8
National Rural Poorest rural Democratic Republic of the Congo 0.0 0.9
Senegal 0.6 1.0
Papua New Guinea 0.0 1.0
FIGURE 19 Progress towards elimination of open defecation by national, rural and poorest rural wealth quintile (2000-2017), among countries with >1% open Djibouti 0.1 1.3
defecation in 2017

5-25%
Sierra Leone 0.2 1.3
Note: Includes countries with trend data available and with >1% national (n=76), rural (n=75) and poorest rural (n=66) practising open defecation in 2017 Ghana 0.2 1.3
Zambia 0.3 1.4
Yemen 0.6 1.4
Nigeria 0.4 1.4
Haiti 1.0 1.5

Viet Nam has made rapid progress towards eliminating open defecation but the poorest in rural areas still lag behind Zimbabwe
Côte d'Ivoire
0.3 1.8
0.6 1.9
Lesotho 1.1 2.0
Viet Nam Kiribati 1.2 2.1
Mauritania 1.4 2.4
Global Region Country Rural/Urban Wealth urban Wealth rural
Kenya 0.4 0.7
2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 Botswana
100 0.6 0.8
Afghanistan 0.8 0.9
Guinea 0.8 1.0
90

1-5%
Cambodia Guinea-Bissau 1.1 1.2
Angola 1.3 1.5
Sudan 1.6 1.8
80
Mozambique 1.9 2.0
Somalia 1.8 2.0
70
Open defecation (%)

Philippines 0.3 0.3


Central and Uganda 0.4 0.5
60 Southern Asia
Malawi 0.4 0.6
Honduras 0.4 0.8
Nicaragua 0.4 0.5
50
Poorest Peru 0.5 0.8
Eswatini 0.5 1.0
40 Mali 0.6 1.0
Morocco 0.5 1.0

<1%
30 Indonesia 0.7 1.3
Pakistan 0.7 1.8
World Rural Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 0.9 1.2
Viet Nam Poorest
20 Cabo Verde 1.5 1.8
Lao People's Democratic Republic 1.5 2.4
Nepal 1.6 2.7
10 Eastern Ethiopia 1.6 3.3
and South-
Richest India 1.9 2.8
Eastern Asia Urban
0 Cambodia 2.4 3.1
Republic Richest
of Korea

FIGURE 20 Inequalities in open defecation rates in Viet Nam and Eastern and South-Eastern Asia, 2000 and 2017 (%) FIGURE 21 Current and required rate of reduction in open defecation, and projected open defecation rates in 2030 (%)

20 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / ELIMINATING OPEN DEFECATION SPECIAL ISSUE ON INEQUALITIES / ELIMINATING OPEN DEFECATION 21
Box 5: Capturing changes in the annual rate of progress in rural India

The primary purpose of global monitoring is to produce In 2014, the Government of India launched the Swachh
internationally comparable estimates based on national data Bharat Mission (SBM) to end open defecation. This nation-
sources. The JMP uses a simple linear regression to calculate wide sanitation drive implemented in campaign mode has led
consistent estimates using all data points available. An expert to a rapid reduction in rural areas of the country, as reflected
review at the start of the SDG period concluded that most in more recent household surveys, such as QCI17, NSS18,
countries did not have enough data points to justify the use NARSS18 and NARSS19. The JMP method is less well suited
of alternative non-linear methods. Also, while non-linear to capturing short-term changes brought about by rapid
methods are potentially more sensitive to short-term changes, increases or decreases in service coverage. Figure 22 shows
they are less reliable for projecting long-term trends. For the that estimates of trends in rural open defecation based on
purposes of global monitoring, the JMP therefore continues to linear regression restricted to data collected since the launch of
use linear regression and applies the same methodology for all the SBM in 2014 (orange line = 35% in 2017) would differ from
countries of the world7. the standard JMP linear regression which uses all available
data points since 2000 (red line = 36% in 2017). Between 2000
7
See World Health Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund Joint and 2014, open defecation decreased by approximately three
Monitoring Programme (JMP), JMP Methodology: 2017 update & SDG percentage points per year, while data from 2015-2019 show a
baselines, WHO and UNICEF, Geneva, 2017, <https://washdata.org/report/ reduction of over 12 percentage points per year. These recent
jmp-methodology-2017-update>.
changes will be better reflected in future JMP reports.

Linear estimates may not reflect rapid increases or decreases in coverage

100 Swachh Bharat Mission


2014-2019

IHDS05
MICS00 DLHS03
CEN01
80 NSS02
NFHS06
SAGE08
Population practising open defecation (%)

CEN11
DLHS08 NSS09

NSS12
60
DHS16
NSS15

IHDS12
QCI17
40
NSS17

NARSS18

20

NARSS19

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

FIGURE 22 Estimating the population practising open defecation in rural India, 2000-2017 (%)

22 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / ELIMINATING OPEN DEFECATION SPECIAL ISSUE ON INEQUALITIES / ELIMINATING OPEN DEFECATION 23
In 2017, 80 countries had achieved ‘nearly universal’ coverage of at least basic drinking water services

4. Reducing inequalities in basic services


0-25
SDG 1 seeks to ‘end poverty in all its forms everywhere’ and DRINKING WATER 25-50
50-75
target 1.4 aims to achieve ‘universal access to basic services’. 75-99
Extending access to basic drinking water, sanitation and In 2017, 90% of the world’s population (6.8 billion people) >99
Insufficient data
hygiene remains the immediate priority for many low and used at least basic drinking water services, rising from Not applicable
middle-income countries and represents an essential step 82% (5 billion people) in 2000. If current trends continue,
towards achieving SDG targets 6.1 and 6.2, which aim for global coverage will be around 96% in 2030, falling short of FIGURE 23 Proportion of population using at least basic drinking water services, 2017 (%)
‘safely managed services’. For this reason, the JMP continues universal access. Between 2000 and 2017, urban coverage
to track the population using basic services, as well as lower increased slightly from 95% to 97%, whereas rural coverage
rungs on the WASH service ladders. increased from 69% to 81%, reducing the urban-rural Three SDG regions increased use of at least basic water services by >10 percentage points between 2000 and 2017
coverage ‘gap’ by 10 percentage points. By 2017, a total 30
Since 2000, billions of people have gained access to basic of 80 countries had achieved >99% coverage, and were
drinking water, sanitation and hygiene services, but many therefore classified as having ‘nearly universal’ coverage
20

countries still have a long way to go to fully realize the SDG (Figure 23), compared with 55 countries in 2000. 10 15
13 14
ambition to achieve ‘universal’ access ‘for all’ and to ‘leave 3 11 12 3
8 0 0 8
6
no one behind’. The JMP database on inequalities now Between 2000 and 2017, use of at least basic services
0
Change in basic drinking water, 2000-2017 (% pt)
includes estimates disaggregated by rural-urban, sub-national increased in all eight SDG regions and coverage in three Sub-Saharan Northern Central and Eastern and Latin America Europe and Australia Landlocked Least Small Island
Oceania Africa and Southern South-Eastern and the Northern and New Developing Developed Developing World
region and wealth quintile for nearly 100 countries, enabling regions increased by over ten percentage points (Figure 24).
Africa
Western Asia Asia Asia Caribbean America Zealand Countries Countries States
comparison of the progress made by different countries in The greatest increase was recorded in Sub-Saharan Africa, Basic drinking water in 2017 (% pt)
3

100
reducing sub-national inequalities in basic WASH services. where a quarter of the current population has gained access 99 100
92 93 93 97
The JMP classifies countries and populations estimated to at least basic drinking water since 2000. Oceania had the 80
90
83
to have achieved >99% coverage as ‘nearly universal’, lowest baseline coverage in 2000, and recorded the smallest
recognizing the limitations of national statistics for identifying increase among regions with less than 99% coverage.
60 64 65
61
small unserved populations. 55
40

20

FIGURE 24 Proportion of population using at least basic drinking water services in 2017, and percentage point change 2000-2017, by region (%)

20 countries have increased use Senegal


Sierra Leone
21
21
of basic water services by >20 Mongolia 21
Kiribati 22
percentage points since 2000 Uganda 22
Ethiopia 22
Nigeria 23
FIGURE 25 Percentage point Paraguay 24
increase in proportion Morocco 24
of population using at Tajikistan 25
least basic drinking water Yemen 26
Cambodia 26
services, 2000-2017 (%) United Republic of Tanzania 29
Mali 30
Mauritania 30
Somalia 33
Myanmar 36
Lao People's Democratic Republic 36
Mozambique 36
Afghanistan 39
0 10 20 30 40

24 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES SPECIAL ISSUE ON INEQUALITIES / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES 25
Since 2000, 328 million people have gained access in Sub- three regions: Sub-Saharan Africa (400 million), Eastern
Saharan Africa, while 570 million and 476 million people and South-Eastern Asia (161 million), and Central and Box 6: Assessing inequalities in the burden of water collection
have gained access in Central and Southern Asia and South Asia (145 million). More than half of the 144 million
Eastern and South Eastern Asia respectively. Between 2000 people who still collected water directly from rivers, lakes
and 2017, one in seven people living in Least Developed and ponds lived in Sub-Saharan Africa (Figure 26). The JMP service ladders highlight inequalities in the
accessibility of water services by distinguishing between
Countries gained access to basic drinking water services. improved sources located on and off-premises and, for the
Figure 26 shows that Eastern and South-Eastern Asia latter, between sources for which a round trip to collect water
Since 2000, 20 countries worldwide have increased recorded the greatest reduction in the absolute number takes up to 30 minutes (‘basic service’) and over 30 minutes
(‘limited service’). National data for 2017 show that while
coverage by over 20 percentage points (Figure 25). The of people without basic water services (216 million), most of the global population reported using improved sources
majority had less than 50% coverage in 2000, and half of followed by Central and South Asia (139 million). However, located on premises (75%) or within 30 minutes (90%), 3%
them are in Sub-Saharan Africa. In 11 countries, coverage in Sub-Saharan Africa (and in Oceania) the total number (207 million) still used sources where water collection exceeded
30 minutes. Two thirds (135 million) of these people lived
has increased by at least 25 percentage points, which of people without services has actually increased. In Sub-
in countries in Sub-Saharan Africa but six out of eight SDG
means one in four people have gained access to at least Saharan Africa the number of people using surface water regions contained at least one country where >10% of the
basic drinking water services since 2000. decreased by one third, but the number using unimproved population used limited water services in 2017.
sources remained unchanged, and the number using limited
In depth JMP analysis for the report The World’s Women
The proportion of the global population lacking at least services with a round trip for water collection exceeding 2015: Trends and statistics8 confirmed that the burden of
basic drinking water has halved, from 19% in 2000 to 10% 30 minutes more than doubled. Previous JMP analysis has water collection falls disproportionately on women. In 53 out New household survey questions not only identify the individual
of 73 of countries with data available from multiple indicator primarily responsible for water collection but also assess the
in 2017, and decreased in all SDG regions. In 2017, nine shown that the burden of collecting water from sources amount of time spent collecting drinking water. In Sierra Leone,
cluster surveys (MICS) and demographic and health surveys
out of ten of the 785 million people who still used limited located off-premises falls primarily on women and girls (DHS), over half of households using sources located off for example, more than one in four households spend over 30
services, unimproved sources or surface water lived in (Box 6). premises relied on women to collect water. In a few countries minutes per day collecting water and three out of five households
(for example, Mongolia), men are primarily responsible, and rely on women, while one in seven rely on girls (Figure 27). The
in 14 countries the burden also falls on children, with a boy average collection time for women and girls is approximately 25
or girl under 15 primarily responsible in at least one in ten minutes 25 minutes per household per day, which equates to
households. over 175 million hours each year in Sierra Leone alone9.
The The
population usingusing
population limited water services
limited in Leastin
water services Developed CountriesCountries
Least Developed doubled between
doubled2000 and 2017
between 2000 and 2017 8
The World’s Women 2015: Trends and Statistics. New York: United Nations, 9
Estimates relate only to the person primarily responsible for water
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, 2015. <https:// collection, and are based on the average number of trips and the average
unstats.un.org/unsd/gender/downloads/WorldsWomen2015_report.pdf> household size.
400
Limited
21
Unimproved
Surface water
350 In Sierra Leone, one in four households spend over 30 minutes per day collecting water, and in three out of four the burden falls
135 primarily on women and girls
57
Population without basic drinking water services in 2017 (in millions)

300 57 Collected by non-


130 Over 3 hours DK/Missing household members

250 72
5
3 1 4
1 Boys
Over 1 hour
170
286 4 11 8
200
3 2 172
180
4
2 Men
150 18 28 31-60 min 15
155
75
19 1 2 14
175
0
100 2000 2017 2000 2017 Women
Australia and
85 60
125 Oceania
103 New Zealand
76 Up to 30 mins Girls
123
50 14 5 99 72 13
85
71 70
25 32
35 51
36 3 2 2 2
23 8 11 5 29
17 14 11 2 1 5 5
8 7 7 1 7 2 4 4 5
0
2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017
Sub-Saharan Eastern Central Northern Latin America Europe Australia and Least Landlocked Small Island
Africa and South- and Southern Africa and and the and Northern Oceania New Zealand Developed Developing Developing
Eastern Asia Asia Western Asia Caribbean America Countries Countries States
FIGURE 27 Drinking water collection among households using sources located off-premises in Sierra Leone, 2017 (%)

FIGURE 26 Population with limited, unimproved and no drinking water service in 2000 and 2017, by region (millions)

26 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES SPECIAL ISSUE ON INEQUALITIES / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES 27
In countries with disaggregated data available, it is possible Figure 29 shows how inequalities in basic water services in Zimbabwe and 16 points in Burkina Faso, the gap between compared with just 15% of the poorest wealth quintile.
to identify sub-national inequalities in basic service coverage. rural areas have changed between 2000 and 2017. While the richest and poorest increased by 16 points in the former there is a 77 point gap between the richest.
Figure 28 shows that in many countries there were still most countries have increased rural coverage of basic and decreased by 13 points in the latter.
significant inequalities between urban and rural areas and services, onlyhalf have also succeeded in reducing the gap in Figure 30 shows current and required rates of progress
between the richest and poorest wealth quintiles in 2017. In coverage between the richest and poorest in rural areas. In the Analysis of basic water coverage by wealth quintiles for for achieving ‘nearly universal’ (>99%) basic water
most countries, coverage of basic water services was higher in other half, inequalities between the richest and poorest rural the same countries reveals that, in general, the disparities services by 2030, among countries with less than 99%
urban than in rural areas but the degree of inequality varied. quintiles have increased. For example, Paraguay increased between the richest and poorest are even greater. For coverage in 2017. It shows that if current rates of change
rural coverage of basic water from 53% to 99% and reduced example, while DDemocratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, continue just one third of countries will achieve >99%
21 countries had rural-urban coverage gaps of less than 10 the gap between richest and poorest by over 40 percentage Madagascar and Togo had urban-rural gaps exceeding 40 coverage of basic services by 2030. Just one in four are
percentage points, 45 countries had gaps of over 20 points, points. While Mexico and Ethiopia increased rural coverage percentage point gaps the gaps between the richest and on track to achieve >99% in rural areas, and only one in
and 15 had gaps of over 40 points. The only country with by 22 and 23 points respectively, the gap between the richest poorest exceeded 60 points. While South Africa, Lao People’s six are on track to achieve >99% among the poorest rural
a gap exceeding 50 points was Somalia where 83% of the and poorest in Mexico was reduced by 25 points whereas in Democratic Republic and Benin have reduced the urban-rural wealth quintile. For example, while Tunisia is on track to
urban population used basic water services, compared with Ethiopia it increased by 22 points. Over the same period, while gap to less than 20 points, the gaps between richest and achieve ‘nearly universal’ coverage at national and rural
just 28% of the rural population. rural water coverage decreased by ten percentage points in poorest still exceed 30 points. The largest gap was observed levels, coverage among the poorest in rural has actually
in Angola where 94% of the richest have basic water services, decreased since 2000.

In many countries, Urban/Rural Wealth quintile


disparities in basic drinking Rural Urban Poorest quintile Richest quintile
Since 2000, 35 countries have 50
Paraguay
water services by residence Democratic Republic of the Congo
increased basic water coverage and INCREASING COVERAGE INCREASING COVERAGE
and wealth persist Angola
reduced the gap between the richest 40 DECREASING EQUALITY INCREASING EQUALITY

% pt change in basic water (2000-2017)


Somalia 39 COUNTRIES 35 COUNTRIES
Chad
Ethiopia
Burkina Faso
and poorest quintiles in rural areas
FIGURE 28 Madagascar 30
Inequalities in the Cameroon
Mozambique
proportion of population Uganda FIGURE 29 Changes in basic water coverage Mexico
Zambia Ethiopia
with at least basic water United Republic of Tanzania and inequalities between richest 20
services, between urban Haiti
and poorest in rural areas, by
Niger
and rural areas and Congo
country, 2000-2017 (%)
Togo
richest and poorest Guinea 10
wealth quintiles, 2017 (%) Kenya
Zimbabwe
Mauritania
Sierra Leone
Rwanda 0
Sudan
Guinea-Bissau
Yemen DECREASING COVERAGE DECREASING COVERAGE
Gabon
Nigeria -10 DECREASING EQUALITY Zimbabwe INCREASING EQUALITY
Mongolia 5 COUNTRIES 8 COUNTRIES
Burundi
Afghanistan Burkina Faso
Côte d'Ivoire
Benin -20
Nicaragua
Lesotho
Eswatini -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Liberia
Gambia % pt change in gap between richest and poorest quintiles (2000-2017)
Malawi
Ghana
Mali
Namibia
Senegal
Cambodia
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Peru
46 out of 132 countries are on track to achieve ‘nearly universal’ basic water services by 2030, but rural areas and the
Tajikistan
Comoros poorest wealth quintiles have furthest to go
Sao Tome and Principe
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
South Africa 8 8 8
Kyrgyzstan
Indonesia 7 7 7
Republic of Moldova 46 COUNTRIES 31 COUNTRIES 13 COUNTRIES
Jamaica ARE ON TRACK ARE ON TRACK ARE ON TRACK
Colombia 6 6 6

Annual rate of change, 2000-2017


Serbia
Tunisia

Percentage points per year


Nepal 5 5 5
Honduras
Albania 4 4 4
Pakistan PROGRESS PROGRESS PROGRESS
Philippines
Dominican Republic 3 IS TOO SLOW 3 IS TOO SLOW 3 IS TOO SLOW
Guatemala IN 64 COUNTRIES IN 63 COUNTRIES IN 55 COUNTRIES
India 2 Tunisia 2 2
Iraq Tunisia
Kazakhstan
Viet Nam 1 1 1
Guyana Tunisia
Uruguay 0 0 0
West Bank and Gaza Strip
Georgia
Mexico -1 -1 -1
North Macedonia BASIC COVERAGE BASIC COVERAGE BASIC COVERAGE
Bangladesh -2 IS DECREASING -2 IS DECREASING -2 IS DECREASING
Belize IN 22 COUNTRIES IN 22 COUNTRIES IN 16 COUNTRIES
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Turkmenistan -3 -3 -3
Jordan 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Saint Lucia
Belarus National Rural Poorest rural
Egypt
Paraguay
Montenegro
Ukraine
Turkey FIGURE 30 Progress towards universal basic drinking water services by national, rural and poorest wealth quintile (2000-2017) among countries with <99%
Armenia
Thailand
national coverage in 2017
Note: Includes countries with trend data available and with >1% national (n=132), rural (n=116) and poorest rural (n=84) lacking basic services in 2017
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

28 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES SPECIAL ISSUE ON INEQUALITIES / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES 29
SANITATION Two SDG regions increased use of basic sanitation services by >20 percentage points between 2000 and 2017

40
In 2017, 74% of the world’s population (5.5 billion people)
30 36
used at least basic sanitation services, compared with 56%
20
(3.4 billion people) in 2000. Achieving universal coverage 24

by 2030 will require a doubling of the current annual 10 14


2 12 3
17
8 10 0 7
rate of increase (one percentage point per annum). While 0
-7
coverage in urban areas (85%) is higher than in rural areas -10
Change in basic sanitation, 2000-2017 (% pt)
(59%), rural coverage has increased more quickly and Australia
Sub-Saharan Central and Eastern and Latin America Northern Europe and Least Landlocked Small Island
the gap in coverage decreased from 43 to 26 percentage Oceania Africa Southern South-Eastern and the Africa and Northern and New Developed Developing Developing World
Asia Asia Caribbean Western Asia America Zealand Countries Countries States
points between 2000 and 2017. By 2017, 50 countries 3
Basic sanitation in 2017 (%)
had achieved >99% coverage and were therefore classified 100
100
98
as ‘nearly universal’ (Figure 31), compared with just 36
countries in 2000. 87 88
80 84

Between 2000 and 2017, coverage of at least basic 73


69
sanitation services increased in all SDG regions, except 60
61
Oceania. Australia and New Zealand had already achieved
>99% coverage by 2000 (Figure 32). The greatest increase
was recorded in Central and Southern Asia, where coverage 40
41
more than doubled from 25% to 61%, and the number of 34
30 31
people with basic services tripled from 384 million to 1.2
20
billion. Eastern and South-Eastern Asia increased coverage Since 2000, 27 countries have increased use of basic
by nearly a quarter. In Oceania, coverage decreased by 7% sanitation services by more than 20 percentage points. In 16
due to a decline in Papua New Guinea. Fewer than one in countries, coverage increased by more than 25 percentage 0
three people in Sub-Saharan Africa had basic services in points, and in seven countries coverage increased by more
2000, and while coverage has increased by fewer than ten than one third. In the Federal States of Micronesia, coverage FIGURE 32 Proportion of population using at least basic sanitation services in 2017, and percentage point change 2000-2017, by region (%)
percentage points, the population with basic services has increased by 64 percentage points, from just 25% in 2000 to
doubled from 149 million in 2000 to 314 million in 2017. 88% in 2017 (Figure 33).

27 countries have increased use of basic sanitation services by >20 percentage points since 2000

Rwanda 21
In 2017, 50 countries had achieved ‘nearly universal’ coverage of basic sanitation services Panama 22
Angola 22
Sao Tome and Principe 23
Bangladesh 23
Morocco 23
Iraq 23
Lebanon 23
Mali 24
Kiribati 24
Botswana 25
Maldives 26
United Republic of Tanzania 26
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 26
China 28
Pakistan 29
Azerbaijan 29
Mauritania 31
Viet Nam 31
Indonesia 32
Cabo Verde 34
Lesotho 34
0-25 India 43
25-50 Lao People's Democratic Republic 46
50-75 Nepal 47
75-99 Cambodia 49
> 99 Micronesia (Federated States of) 64
Insufficient data 0 20 40 60 80
Not applicable

FIGURE 31 Proportion of population using at least basic sanitation services, 2017 (%) FIGURE 33 Percentage point increase in proportion of population using at least basic sanitation services, 2000-2017 (%)

30 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES SPECIAL ISSUE ON INEQUALITIES / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES 31
The population without basic sanitation services decreased in all regions except Sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania

1,200

Limited
1,100
88 Unimproved
Open defecation
1,000
Population without basic sanitation services in 2017 (in millions)

158

900

8
800
94 7

700 6

5
242 185 6
600 4 153
3 4
500 64
2
878 125 97
562 1
400 1 2
0 0
319 0
220 325
2000 2017 2000 2017
300 190 146
Oceania Australia 55
and New
200 Zealand 24
382
74 149 Figure 35 shows the total number of people gaining basic region came from countries with the largest populations,
167
100 210 204
28 234
181
sanitation services between 2000 and 2017, including including India, China, Brazil, Nigeria, Egypt, the United
147 60 29 18
52 38 29 18
24 9 7 4
124
94 5 6 population growth. While the global population increased States of America and Papua New Guinea. 486 million
51 16 32 19 37 20 6 0 0 9 10
1
0
2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017
2
2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017
6 5
2000 2017
by 1.4 billion people, the population using basic sanitation people gained access to basic sanitation services in India and
services increased by 2.1 billion. Nearly three out of four 451 million gained access in China, accounting for nearly
Central and Sub-Saharan Eastern and Latin America Northern Europe Oceania Australia Least Landlocked Small Island
Southern Africa South-Eastern and the Africa and and Northern and New Developed Developing and Developing people gaining access during this period lived in Central and half of the global total. Over 100 million people gained
Asia Asia Caribbean Western Asia America Zealand Countries Countries States
South Asia (807 million) and in Eastern and South-Eastern access in Indonesia and more than 50 million people in
Asia (698 million). The biggest contributions in each SDG Pakistan and in Brazil.
FIGURE 34 Population with limited and unimproved sanitation services and open defecation in 2000 and 2017 (millions)

2.1 billion people gained basic sanitation services between 2000 and 2017
Between 2000 and 2017, the proportion of the population
that still lacked even a basic sanitation service decreased Box 8: Gender inequalities associated with shared sanitation Central and Southern Asia 807 Eastern and South-Eastern Asia 688 Sub-Saharan Africa 163
from 44% to 27% globally and decreased in all SDG regions
South Africa
except Oceania. Figure 34 shows that among the 2 billion
The JMP classes households using improved sanitation Nigeria
people still without basic sanitation services in 2017, nine United
Republic Angola
facilities shared with other households as a ‘limited’ service. of Tanzania
out of ten lived in three regions: Central and Southern The types of facilities being shared (for example, household
Asia (749 million), Sub-Saharan Africa (709 million), and toilets, compound toilets, community toilets, public toilets)
Eastern and South-Eastern Asia (364 million). While the and the numbers of people sharing them vary across China
countries, but sharing is generally agreed to represent a
total population without basic services decreased by 416 lower level of service. Sharing sanitation facilities is not only India
million in Eastern and South-Eastern Asia and by 381 likely to increase exposure to health risks but the Special
Rapporteur on the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation Latin America
million in Central and South Asia, it increased in Sub- and the Caribbean 156
has also raised serious concerns about the negative impacts Brazil
Saharan Africa by 212 million and in Oceania by 3 million. on dignity, privacy and safety, especially for women and girls United
States of
While the number of people practising open defecation and those with limited mobility who are disproportionately America
in Sub-Saharan Africa remained largely unchanged, the affected. Shared sanitation nevertheless remains an Viet Nam
Thailand

important interim solution, especially for poorer households


number using unimproved sanitation facilities increased Indonesia Mexico
in rapidly growing urban areas in low income countries. Malaysia

by half, and the number sharing improved sanitation There has therefore been an increased effort in recent years Philippines
Europe and
Northern America 88
facilities with other households doubled. Shared sanitation
Cambodia
to ensure that shared facilities and public toilets are well Peru
Iran
is an important interim solution, especially in rapidly managed and ‘female friendly’10. (Islamic
Colombia
Republic Ecuador
Bangladesh of) Iraq Saudi
Arabia
growing urban areas, but is generally considered a lower 10
See WaterAid, ‘Female-friendly Public and Communal Toilets: A
Pakistan
Egypt Turkey
level of service due to increased health risks and human guide for planners and decision makers’, WaterAid, WSUP and UNICEF,
Nepal
Afghanistan
Morocco Algeria
<https://washmatters.wateraid.org/publications/female-friendly-pub- Oceania 1
rights concerns relating to dignity and safety, which lic-and-community-toilets-a-guide-for-planners-and-decision-makers> Northern Africa and Western Asia 163 Australia and New Zealand 6
disproportionately affect women and girls (Box 8). accessed 29 May 2019.

FIGURE 35 Population gaining access to at least basic sanitation services, 2000-2017, by country and region (millions)

32 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES SPECIAL ISSUE ON INEQUALITIES / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES 33
Capital cities often have higher coverage of basic sanitation services In countries where data are disaggregated by sub-national Figure 37 shows changes in basic sanitation coverage in
region, it is possible to identify inequalities between different urban areas, as well as changes in the ‘gap’ in coverage
parts of the country. Figure 36 shows that the regions in between the richest and poorest urban wealth quintiles,
Sub-regions Capital region
which the capital is located often have higher coverage than between 2000 and 2017. The majority of countries have
Georgia other regions, for example, in Colombia, and Central African increased urban coverage. While the gap between richest
Armenia
Turkmenistan Republic. But in some countries, for example, Iraq, Honduras and poorest has been reduced in 52 countries it has
Serbia and Burundi, the capital is in the middle of the range, and increased in 22 countries. In 6 out of 14 countries where
Yemen
North Macedonia in a small number, for example, Thailand, Kyrgyzstan and urban coverage decreased the gap between richest and
Tajikistan Bangladesh, coverage is lowest in the capital region. poorest also increased.
Albania
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Costa Rica While the number of sub-national regions per country Since 2000, Cambodia increased urban coverage of
Thailand
Barbados varies there are often significant inequalities in basic service basic sanitation from 46% to 96% and reduced the gap
Colombia coverage. In some countries, sub-national regions are between richest and poorest by over 60 percentage points.
Belize
Iraq closely grouped with similarly high levels of coverage (for Meanwhile Mozambique increased coverage from 32% to
Panama example, Serbia) or low levels of coverage (for example, 52% but the gap between richest and poorest increased by
Paraguay
Kazakhstan Madagascar). In other countries, large differences are 30 points. Over the same period urban coverage decreased
Peru observed between the highest and lowest sub-national by 5 points in Uganda and 11 points in Rwanda, but the gap
Kyrgyzstan
Cambodia regions, for example, in Yemen, Afghanistan, Mauritania between the richest and poorest increased by XX points in
Suriname and Tanzania. In some cases, a small number of regions lag the Uganda and decreased by YY points in Rwanda.
Republic of Moldova
Dominican Republic far behind (for example, Georgia, Panama and Indonesia).
Philippines
Algeria
Indonesia
Mozambique Since 2000, 52 countries have increased 50 Cambodia
Mongolia
basic sanitation coverage, and reduced

% pt change in basic sanitation (2000-2017)


India INCREASING COVERAGE INCREASING COVERAGE

Mauritania the gap between the richest and poorest 40 DECREASING EQUALITY
22 COUNTRIES
INCREASING EQUALITY
52 COUNTRIES
Angola quintiles, in urban areas
Senegal 30
Honduras
Sudan FIGURE 37 Changes in basic sanitation coverage
Nepal and inequalities between wealth 20 Mozambique
Burkina Faso quintiles in urban areas, by country,
Côte d'Ivoire 2000-2017 (%)
10
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
Mali
Kenya 0
Namibia Uganda
Gambia
Lesotho -10 DECREASING COVERAGE Rwanda DECREASING COVERAGE
DECREASING EQUALITY INCREASING EQUALITY
Rwanda 6 COUNTRIES 8 COUNTRIES
Afghanistan
-20
Central African Republic
Zimbabwe -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Bangladesh % pt change in gap between richest and poorest quintile (2000-2017)
United Republic of Tanzania
Guinea
Gabon 40 out of 152 countries are on track to achieve ‘nearly universal’ basic sanitation services by 2030, but progress is slower
Burundi
Liberia in rural areas and among the poorest wealth quintile
Guinea-Bissau 8 8 8
Niger 7 7 7
Zambia 40 COUNTRIES 26 COUNTRIES 10 COUNTRIES
Chad 6 ARE ON TRACK 6 ARE ON TRACK 6 ARE ON TRACK

Annual rate of change, 2000-2017


Ghana 5 5 5

Percentage points per year


Togo PROGRESS IS PROGRESS IS PROGRESS IS
4 TOO SLOW 4 TOO SLOW 4 TOO SLOW
Uganda IN 88 COUNTRIES IN 85 COUNTRIES IN 54 COUNTRIES
Cambodia
Congo 3 3
Cambodia
3
Ethiopia 2 2 2
Democratic Republic of the Congo Cambodia
1 1 1
Madagascar
0 0 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 -1 -1 -1
BASIC COVERAGE BASIC COVERAGE BASIC COVERAGE
-2 IS DECREASING -2 IS DECREASING -2 IS DECREASING
IN 24 COUNTRIES IN 17 COUNTRIES IN 21 COUNTRIES
-3 -3 -3
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
FIGURE 36 Inequalities in the proportion of population with basic sanitation services, by sub-national region, 2017 (%)
National Rural Poorest rural

FIGURE 38 Progress towards universal basic sanitation services by national, rural and poorest wealth quintile (2000-2017) among countries with <99% coverage in 2017
Note: Includes countries with trend data available and with >1% national (n=152), rural (n=128) and poorest rural (n=85) lacking basic services in 2017.

34 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES SPECIAL ISSUE ON INEQUALITIES / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES 35
HYGIENE In 42 out of 78 countries with data, less than half of the population had a basic handwashing facility at home

SDG target 6.2 includes an explicit reference to achieving In 2017, 60% of the global population (4.5 billion people) had
‘equitable hygiene for all’. Hygiene comprises a range of a basic handwashing facility with soap and water available at Asia
tern
d Wes
behaviours that help to maintain health and prevent the home. A further 22% (1.6 billion people) had handwashing an
ica
Afr
spread of diseases, including handwashing, menstrual facilities that lacked water or soap at the time of the survey, ern

ngo epublic
rth
hygiene management and food hygiene. The indicator and 18% (1.4 billion people) had no handwashing facility at No

of th ocratic R
on
2 Lesotho
selected for global monitoring of SDG 6.2 is the all. Handwashing estimates were available for three out of

Armen

1 Liberia

Camero
Oman 97

e Co
Iraq
Egyp
Aze

nda
Alg
proportion of the population with a handwashing facility eight SDG regions and for 78 countries, but few data were

Dem
ia 94
eria
rba

Rwa
t

95

u
ad

sa
Sy Re

di
3
with soap and water available at home. available for high income countries, and insufficient data were

Tu

ijan

90

Bis
run
Ch
4
ria pu

nis

84

a−
5
n A bli

Bu
ia

ine
83
available to estimate regional and global trends.

6
ra c

Gu
b

bia
7
Ye

6
9

m
m

71

Ga
en

ia
El

Su

op
Sa

da

50

hi
8
lva i

Et
do aw
al

23
r

8
Be M
91 ali
a

n
liz 9
e m

bea
So
Me 90
xic 10 go

arib
o To
88
Cu 10

C
ba nin
Be

the
Ecu 85 11 aso
ado aF
kin
Bur

and
r
81

Sub-
Para 12
guay bia

erica
80 Zam
14

Sahar
Guya itania
Maur

Latin Am
na
77 16

an Africa
Guatem
ala nea
77 17 Gui
Colombia ne
65 19 Sierra Leo

Dominican Republic 55 19 Côte d'Ivoire

Bolivia (Plurin
ational 25 21 Senegal
State of)
23 21 Ugand
Haiti a

n 100
24 Es
nista wati ni
me
Turk
99 25
an Ken
a khst ya
Kaz 27
96 Ang
es ola
ldiv
Ma 37
89 Zim
n
z sta 41 bab
Ky
rgy 73 we
an Gh
st 41 an
Ta
j iki 60 S
a
ta
n 42 an ao T
kis 60 d P om

Ce
Pa Ni rin e
cip

ntr
a
di ge e

48

44
In ria

al

38
l

45
pa

So
an

Ne

ut
dS

35

h
48
an

Af
Na
ist

ric
91

48
ou

m
Un Tan
an

a
ib
of
es

86

52
gh

ite za
th

ia
lad

nd
Af

Co
79

d R nia
25
er

ng

aila

78

36

ng

ep
n

am

Ma
71

83
Ba

66

28

o
64

ub
As

50 Democratic Republic
Th

Van
r
tN

li
nma

li
ia

c
Solo
Vie

pine

uatu
lia

Marsh
Mya

Cambodia

Timor−Les
Indonesia

Lao People's
Mongo

mon
Philip

all Isla

Islan
te

ds
nds
East
ern and S
outh-E
astern Asia

FIGURE 39 Proportion of population with basic handwashing facilities at home, by country and region, 2017 (%)

Figure 39 shows inequalities in coverage of basic most countries had more than 50% coverage, whereas
handwashing facilities, which range from just one percent in Sub-Saharan Africa most countries had less than 50%
in Liberia to >99% in other countries. In Central and coverage of basic handwashing facilities with soap and
Southern Asia and Northern Africa and Western Asia, water available.

36 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES SPECIAL ISSUE ON INEQUALITIES / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES 37
Figure 40 highlights the 19 countries with data where Figure 41 shows both the proportion of the population and the
more than half of the population had no handwashing total number of people with no handwashing facility among the Box 9: Fixed and mobile handwashing facilities
facility at all, ranging from 52% in Guinea to 97% in 78 countries with data available. It shows that 17 countries had
Liberia. In nine countries, at least three quarters of the at least 10 million people and 30 countries had at least 5 million
Observation of handwashing facilities has been a standard detergent and soapy water but does not include ash, soil, sand
population had no handwashing facility at home in 2017. people with no facility in 2017. The largest numbers with no component of MICS and DHS household surveys since 2009. or other handwashing agents. Disaggregated data show that the
Achieving the SDG target of universal access to basic facility were found in populous countries, such as Indonesia (78 Enumerators ask to see the place where members of the types of handwashing facilities used varies widely, and that in
household most often wash their hands and record the type of many countries people are more likely to use mobile facilities
handwashing facilities for all will be especially challenging in million), Democratic Republic of the Congo (69 million), Nigeria
facility used and the presence of water and soap. Handwashing (Figure 42). However, emerging data also suggest that water
these countries. (49 million), Ethiopia (43 million) and India (37 million). facilities may be fixed, such as sinks with taps or buckets with and soap are less likely to be found near mobile facilities, for
taps or tippy-taps, or mobile, such as jugs or basins designated example, in Côte d’Ivoire (Figure 43).
for handwashing. Soap includes bar soap, liquid soap, powder

In 19 countries, more than half of the population had no handwashing facility at home
Guinea 52 Emerging data show that many households use mobile handwashing facilities
Senegal 54 100
Somalia 56 Mobile handwashing facility 2
Sudan 57 Fixed handwashing facility 19
Zambia 58 13
Angola 58
80
Sierra Leone 58
Mauritania 59
39 56

Proportion of the population (%)


Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 59
Benin 73
Chad 76 60

Gambia 77 30 70
Togo 78 64
95
Cameroon 84
31 60
Democratic Republic of the Congo 84 40 79 81
Rwanda 86 47
24 58
Guinea-Bissau 89
19 27 45
Lesotho 95 51
Liberia 97 20 41 42
0 20 40 60 80 100
27
19 22 20
19
FIGURE 40 Proportion of population with no handwashing facility at home, 2017 14 13 11
6 4
0
Kenya Sierra Senegal Burkina Guinea Uganda Ethiopia Mali Nigeria Haiti Côte Lao Philippines Armenia Burundi Nepal
Leone Faso d'Ivoire People’s
Democratic
In 17 countries >10 million people had no handwashing facility at home in 2017 Republic

FIGURE 42 Proportion of population with fixed and mobile handwashing facilities at home, selected countries, 2015-2017

In Côte d’Ivoire, water and soap were less likely to be observed near mobile facilities

100

80 86 87

Proportion of population (%)


Water
79
Soap
60
Water and soap

52
40 48

<1 34
1-5 20
5-25
25-50
>50 0
Insufficient data Fixed handwashing facility Mobile handwashing facility
Not applicable
FIGURE 43 Proportion of population with fixed and mobile handwashing facilities with water and soap available, Côte d’Ivoire, 2016 (%)
50 million 5 million 0.5 million
FIGURE 41 Proportion and number of people with no handwashing facility at home, 2017

38 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES SPECIAL ISSUE ON INEQUALITIES / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES 39
Data collected through household surveys can be coverage increases, and then decreases again when urban
disaggregated for rural and urban areas and for wealth coverage reaches 80%. The gaps in coverage between
quintiles. Figure 44 shows that in most countries with the richest and poorest quintiles in urban areas are
disaggregated data available coverage was higher even greater, and in some cases, for example Gambia,
in urban areas than rural areas in 2017. The gap in Bangladesh, South Africa and Nepal, coverage among the
coverage appears to be smaller in countries where poorest people in urban areas is lower than the average
urban coverage is less than 20%, but increases as urban for rural areas.

Coverage of basic handwashing facilities is higher in urban areas but there are significant gaps between the richest
and poorest

Rural Urban Poorest urban quintile Urban Richest urban quintile

Lesotho
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Guinea-Bissau
Gambia
Cameroon
Benin
Chad
Burundi
Ethiopia
Zambia
Guinea
Sierra Leone
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
Côte d'Ivoire
Haiti
Sudan
Angola
Uganda
Sao Tome and Principe
Senegal
Eswatini
Zimbabwe
Bangladesh
South Africa
Nigeria
Mauritania
Congo
Dominican Republic
Namibia
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Nepal
Mali
Yemen
Guyana
India
Mongolia
Guatemala
Pakistan
Paraguay
Thailand
Philippines
Tajikistan
Algeria
Cambodia
Mexico
Tunisia
Belize
El Salvador
Viet Nam
Kyrgyzstan
Iraq
Armenia
Kazakhstan
Turkmenistan
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

FIGURE 44 Inequalities in coverage of basic handwashing facilities between urban and rural and urban wealth quintiles, 2017 (%)

40 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES SPECIAL ISSUE ON INEQUALITIES / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES 41
Box 10: Paying special attention to the needs of women and girls

Menstrual hygiene management (MHM) is increasingly widely During their period, most women and girls wash and change materials The types of materials used during menstruation varies between and within countries
used as a term for addressing the specific needs of women at home
and girls during menstruation. It covers a range of issues from 100 3 3 2 1
100 4
6 4 3
raising awareness and changing social norms and practices to the 11 11 2 5 5
3 4
provision of facilities and materials that enable women and girls 1 1
24
32
to manage their periods safely and with dignity. MHM-related 80
80 40 23
questions are increasingly being included in household survey
23
questionnaires for individual women aged 15-49, and typically 37
58 57
cover access to materials and a private place to wash and change,
46
as well as exclusion from social, educational and employment 60 1
62
60
23 87 87
85 87
opportunities during menstruation. These can be used to assess 94
15
gender-based inequalities in access to WASH services, which are
one element to address as part of wider efforts to ‘achieve gender 89
40 40
76
equality and empower all women and girls’ under SDG5. 69
65
54
Emerging data on menstrual hygiene from PMA2020 surveys 45 46
20 43 41
show that women and girls typically wash and change menstrual 20 39
29
materials at home (Figure 45). They also show that many
women use sanitation facilities that are not safe, clean or 13 12 13 13
private and frequently lack water or soap and that relatively 0 0
6
few facilities meet all these criteria (Figure 46). Access to Ethiopia Burkina Niger Ghana Indonesia Uganda Kenya Niger Ethiopia Kenya Uganda Ghana Indonesia Iraq Lao People’s Sierra Leone
Faso Democratic
appropriate materials and the type of materials used also varies
Household Sleeping School, work Backyard/ Materials reused Materials not reused No appropriate materials Republic
widely across countries (Figure 47). In Lao People’s Democratic sanitation area or public sanitation no facility/other
Republic, for example, disaggregated data show that women in
the richest wealth quintile are more than twice as likely to have FIGURE 45 Proportion of women and girls, aged 15-49 who menstruated FIGURE 47 Proportion of women and girls, aged 15-49 who menstruated in the last three months, using appropriate materials and their reuse, selected
access to appropriate materials and a private place to wash and in the last three months, by place they usually wash and change MICS and PMA2020 surveys, 2015-2017
change, than women in the poorest quintile (Figure 48). menstrual materials, selected PMA2020 surveys, 2015-2017

In Lao PDR, poorer women and girls are less likely to use appropriate
Sanitation facilities often do not meet the needs of women and girls materials and have a private place to wash and change
100

100 98
96 97
94 96 94 95
89 90 89
Proportion of menstruating women reporting a sanitation facility

87 87 88
85
as the main place where they wash and change materials(%)

82 81 81 80
80 79
76
74 74 74
69
70
60
60 57 56 55
54 55
52 53
52

45 46
44

38 40
40
35 41
29 29 28
28
22 24

20 19 20
13

0 0
Niger Ethiopia Kenya Ghana Uganda Indonesia Poorest Poor Middle Rich Richest
Safe Clean Private Lock Water Soap All elements
FIGURE 48 Proportion of women and girls, aged 15-49 who menstruated
in the last 12 months, using appropriate materials and having
FIGURE 46 Proportion of women and girls using a sanitation facility to wash and change materials during their period by condition of facility, selected
a private place to wash and change, Lao People’s Democratic
PMA2020 surveys, 2015-2017
Republic MICS/SIS, 2015-2017 (%)

42 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES SPECIAL ISSUE ON INEQUALITIES / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES 43
Leave no one behind: closing the gap between richest and poorest Progress in reducing inequalities between the richest and poorest varies widely across countries

BASIC DRINKING WATER (RURAL)

Paraguay Trinidad and Tobago Haiti Nicaragua


99

89
85
84
80 79

71
68

58

48
44 43
37
32
29
22

2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017

BASIC SANITATION (URBAN)

Lao People's
Democratic Republic Cambodia Mongolia Thailand

99 99 99 98 98 100 100

92 92
90

68

60

50 51
The 2030 Agenda commits member states to ‘reduce coverage for many years. Coverage of basic sanitation
inequalities within and between countries’ and to ‘leave services in urban areas of Lao People’s Democratic 34
no one behind’ which implies progressively reducing Republic has increased faster among the poorest,
and eliminating the gap between advantaged and gradually closing the gap with the richest between 2000
disadvantaged groups. The JMP inequalities database and 2017. In urban Cambodia, Mongolia and Thailand
includes estimates of trends in basic water and the richest quintile already had nearly universal access 0
sanitation services and open defecation disaggregated to basic sanitation in 2000. In Cambodia the poorest 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017

by wealth quintile and Figure 49 shows how inequalities quintile made substantial progress in catching up to the OPEN DEFECATION (RURAL)
between the richest and poorest have changed richest quintile, increasing coverage by 60 percentage
Ethiopia Gambia Guinea-Bissau Central African
between 2000 and 2017 in selected countries. points, but coverage among the poorest in Mongolia and Republic
Thailand has remained largely unchanged since 2000. 95
In Latin America and the Caribbean, 12% of the rural
population lacked basic water services in 2017, compared Open defecation is largely a rural phenomenon, and 80

to 29% in 2000. In Paraguay, rural basic water coverage has in 2017 the ten countries with highest levels of open 69
increased faster among the poorest, and the gap between defecation in rural areas were all in sub-Saharan Africa. 64

57
the two has been significantly reduced, while in Trinidad In Ethiopia open defecation in rural areas has decreased
and Tobago coverage has increased faster among the faster among the richest (69 percentage points) than the 46 46 46

richest. In Haiti rural basic water coverage has increased poorest (49 points) since 2000. By 2017, Gambia had
among the richest but decreased among the poorest nearly eliminated open defecation among the richest 27

thereby widening the gap between them. In Nicaragua, rural and significantly reduced the gap with the poorest in 15 14
basic water coverage has decreased among both groups. rural areas. While Guinea Bissau has achieved a rapid 11
8
reduction in open defecation among the richest, the 2 0 0

In Eastern and South-Eastern Asia, the urban population practice is increasing among the poorest in rural areas. 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017

lacking basic sanitation services was halved between In Central African Republic, there has been little progress Richest Poorest Gap between richest and poorest quintiles
2000 and 2017, dropping from 20% to 9%, and in many in reducing open defecation among the richest and a
countries the richest quintile have enjoyed near universal significant increase in open defecation among the poorest. FIGURE 49 Trends in basic drinking water, basic sanitation and open defecation among the richest and poorest wealth quintiles in rural and urban areas, 2000-2017

44 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES SPECIAL ISSUE ON INEQUALITIES / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES 45
In 2017, coverage of safely managed services was higher in urban areas in all regions

Urban drinking water ladders

5. Reducing inequalities 100


1
6
3
1
1 2
7
3
1
2 3
3
1
3 1
6
1
3 3
2
2
1
Surface water
Unimproved

in safely managed services


2 7
17 11 Limited
8 9 Basic
Safely managed
80
34 20

34 32

60

SAFELY MANAGED DRINKING WATER


97 97 97 95
91 92
In 2017, 71% of the global population used safely managed Urban populations were twice as likely to have safely managed 40 82 85
drinking water services. National estimates were available services in Latin America and the Caribbean and four times 69
for 117 countries and four out of eight SDG regions, more likely in sub-Saharan Africa, whereas urban and rural 62
representing 38% of the global population. Coverage was areas had similar levels of coverage in Central and Southern Asia. 50 52
lower in rural areas (53%) than in urban areas (85%), which 20

were home to two out of three of the 5.3 billion people using Figure 50 shows inequalities in national coverage of safely
safely managed services. Between 2000 and 2017, rural managed services, which ranged from just 7% in Uganda to
coverage has nevertheless been increasing faster than urban >99% (`nearly universal’ coverage) in other countries in 2017.
0
coverage, and the gap in safely managed service coverage There were 25 countries worldwide that had already achieved Sub-Saharan Central and Latin Eastern Australia Europe and Oceania Northern Least Landlocked Small Island World
Africa Southern America and South- and New Northern Africa and Developed Developing Developing
has decreased from 47 to 32 percentage points. Six SDG nearly universal coverage of safely managed services, but Asia and the Eastern Zealand America Western Countries Countries States
Caribbean
regions had urban estimates available in 2017, and three there were still countries with less than 50% coverage in all Asia Asia

regions had estimates for rural areas (Figure 49). SDG regions, except for Australia and New Zealand.
Rural drinking water ladders
100 1 2
2 5 4 4 Surface water
7 3 10 8 Unimproved
13 6 11
1 17 11 Limited
2 9
1 Basic
4 Safely managed
80 20
20
25 31 48 14

46 5 28
60
15 19

17
100 98 6
2
86 84
40 29
33
64
34 60
53
20 42 44

26
20
12
0
Sub-Saharan Central and Latin Eastern Australia Europe and Oceania Northern Least Landlocked Small Island World
Africa Southern America and South- and New Northern Africa and Developed Developing Developing
Asia and the Eastern Zealand America Western Countries Countries States
Caribbean Asia Asia

FIGURE 50 Urban and rural drinking water coverage, by SDG region, 2017 (%)

46 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN SAFELY MANAGED SERVICES SPECIAL FOCUS ON INEQUALITIES / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN SAFELY MANAGED SERVICES 47
Use of safely managed drinking water services varies substantially by country and region To meet the new SDG criteria for safely managed drinking Improved facility types
water services, households must use an improved water
source11 that is: To calculate the number of people using safely managed
Australia and
New Zealand
services, it is first necessary to understand the main types
Sub-S
ahar
• Accessible on premises: located within the dwelling, of improved drinking water sources they use. In 2017, piped
an A
fric
a yard or plot sources were more common than other improved sources in
• Available when needed: sufficient water available or all SDG regions except for Sub-Saharan Africa and Central
at least 12 hours per day and Southern Asia. Figure 51 shows that there have also

New Zealand 100


Ce

10 Sierra Leone
nt • Free from contamination: compliant with standards

Liech

ire
ra been significant changes in the number of people using

7 Uganda

11 Ethiopia
San

Greece 10
Monac

d'Ivo
la

Un

Malta 100

20 Nigeria
tenste
for faecal contamination (E. coli) and priority

36 Ghana
nd

ited

Gib

Mar
each type between 2000 and 2017. Globally, the population

a
len
n go
37 Côte
S

tte
ralta

o
Icela
Kin
Ne

ino

e
in 10
chemical contamination (arsenic and fluoride)

ayo

tH
45 Co
100
the
using piped sources increased from 3.5 billion to 4.8 billion

ion
gdo

ou
r 1

84 M
100
nd 1

n
0
rla

Sai

un
Sw

th
0
m

00

l
nd

pa

tan
Ge

er
ed

and increased in all SDG regions. The largest increase was

00
1
s

Ne
en

89
rm

nA
kis
00
10
Slo

an
96

Pa
an

an
1

ut
Improved water sources include piped water, boreholes or tubewells, protected
va

sia
0 11
recorded in Eastern and South-Eastern Asia where 527
y1

27
00

ist
Fi

sh
Bh
kia
nl

jik

de
35
dug wells, protected springs, rainwater, and packaged or delivered water.
00

an
an
Be

Ta

la
t
1

Un
kis
d

36

ng
00
lg

Po
i
of ted n
million people gained access. This equates to an average of
iu

be

Ba
10 0

la
sta

48
m

Am Sta nd Uz yz
0

tan
10

er tes rg

55
99
Au i
str a 9
c 59 Ky
az
ak
hs
ic
am )
85,000 people per day over a 17-year period.
Ca ia 9 6 8 K Isl of
na 99 n ( lic n
da 90 Ira epub enista
Sp 99 R m s blic FREE FROM
ain 92 Turk eople'ic Repu
Over the same period, the global population using non-

Eas
No 98 P t BASIC CONTAMINATION
rwa
y 94 Lao mocra SERVICE

tern
Slo De
ven
ia
98 16
Mo
ngo
lia
piped sources increased from 1.6 billion to 2.2 billion. The
Cze 98 4 ia
rica

2 bod

and
Fran
chia
98 26
C a m
pine
s number of people using non-piped sources increased in
h Ame

ce il ip le's
Peop

South
Ph
Irelan
d
98 47 Democratiocf Korea
b li c
four regions and decreased in the other four. In Central
97 67 Rep
u SAFELY
Isle of
and Southern Asia, 335 million people gained access to
Europe and Nort

MANAGED

-Eastern Asia
Man laysia
97 93 Ma
Bulgaria of Korea SERVICE
97 Republic
98 non-piped sources, which equates to an average of 54,000
Greenland an AVAILABLE
97 98 Jap
, Hong Kong Special WHEN ACCESSIBLE people per day between 2000 and 2017. Sub-Saharan
Denmark 97 100 China
Administrative Region ON PREMISES
Switzerland 95 100 Singapore
NEEDED
Africa was the only other SDG region where more people
Portugal 95
China, Macao Spe
100 Adm cial
inistrative Region gained access to non-piped sources than to piped sources.
Latvia 95 13 Amer
44 Van
ican Samoa In Oceania the number of people using non-piped sources
Italy 95 uatu
s 95 59 Sa nearly doubled from 1.36 million to 2.66 million.
Belaru moa
4 90 N
n e gro 9 orth
ern M
te 97
Mon 93 aria
n ia Ne na Is

ania
wC
Esto 2 97 aled land
s
ia 9 onia
uan 2 100 Niue
Lith

Oce
i n e 9 G
a
92 43 u am
Ukr
d s 50 Me
e l Isla
n
r a
91
52 Pe
xic
o Half a billion people have gained access to piped water in Eastern and South-Eastern Asia since 2000
ann do
r 0 ru
Ch An t i a 9 56 Ni
oa 0
y 9
ca
Cr r 64 rag
89
a Gu ua
ng d 73 ate 1,300
Hu a n 83 Pa m Piped
a na r ala
s ni ovi d Co
ag
u
g n
82

ay
Bo rze e a lon 1,200
75

lo
r e m Other improved
81

He ier iqu
87

bi
ia

Ec

a
tP M
76
an

91

ua

1,100
nia

in
m

94

a
do
Gr
Ro

S
ldo a 7
o

on

73
ed

r
94

en
Fr
ti

70

an
ac

ad
97

en
ra

1,000
Co
rb
M

40

a
99
va
de

ch

be
Pu
Se

100

st
rth

99
Fe

100

Gu
aR
48

er t
Gu

rib
ani

99
No

59
rg
Mo

99
ian

70

ian

900
96

Ch

ica
o
74
94

ade
Alb

bou

93

80

Ca
86 Armenia
90 Oman
ait
ss

Ric
M

e
a
of

ile
rus

Leba

th
Ru

lou
Kuw

artin
l

Iraq
em

Israe

o
in
c

Qatar

Moroc
bli

Jordan
Cyp

d
Azerbai

800
Bahra

pe
Georgia
Tunisia
Lux

an
non
pu

ique

ica
Re

co

er 700
jan

m
ti nA 1263
La 600

500

Norther 400
a
n Af rica and Western Asi
300
527 529
200
335
254
100
145 152 157 181 176 208
1 1 7 93 26 7 5 97 102
FIGURE 51 Proportion of population with safely managed drinking water services, by country and region, 2017 (%) 0
-1 -9 -53
-25
-100
Oceania Australia Europe and Northern Sub-Saharan Latin America Central and Eastern and Small Island Landlocked Least World
and New Northern Africa and Africa and the Southern South-Eastern Developing Developing Developed
Zealand America Western Caribbean Asia Asia States Countries Countries
Asia

FIGURE 52 Change in population using piped and non-piped drinking water supplies, by SDG region, 2000-2017 (millions)

48 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN SAFELY MANAGED SERVICES SPECIAL FOCUS ON INEQUALITIES / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN SAFELY MANAGED SERVICES 49
Improved water sources are not always accessible, In 2017, almost all countries had data on the proportion of Only 14 countries can disaggregate all three elements of safely managed drinking water for rural and urban areas
available when needed, or free from contamination the population using improved water sources. 221 countries
had data on improved and accessible, 93 countries had data
Accessible on premises Available when needed Free from contamination
Accessible vs improved on improved and available, and 117 countries had data on
improved and free from contamination. Figure 52 shows that Uganda
100
not all improved water sources meet the new SDG criteria,
Ethiopia
and the proportion that are accessible, available and free
Improved and accessible on premises (%)

80 from contamination varies widely between countries. This Sierra Leone

illustrates the challenge that many countries face in meeting Lao People’s
Democratic Republic
60 the SDG target for safely managed services.
Ghana

While household surveys and censuses remain the primary Nigeria


40
source of data on the types of facilities people use, Côte d'Ivoire
information on service levels is drawn from a combination
Peru
20
of household surveys and administrative sources, including
Nepal
regulators12. In the small number of countries that have
0 disaggregated data available for all three criteria of safely Nicaragua
0 20 40 60 80 100 managed drinking water services, significant differences are Morocco
Improved (%)
observed between urban and rural areas (Figure 53).
Democratic People’s
Available vs improved Republic of Korea
In almost all countries, service levels are higher in urban Paraguay
100
areas than in rural areas, but different patterns of inequality
Improved and available when needed (%)

Ecuador
are observed. For example, accessibility is equally low in
80
rural (4%) and urban (16%) areas of Uganda, whereas in 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Ethiopia there is a 67 percentage point gap between rural
Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban
60 (5%) and urban (72%). In Nicaragua, the gap in service
levels between urban and rural exceeds 40 percentage points
40
for two out of three SDG criteria, while in Nepal the gaps FIGURE 54 Proportion of rural and urban populations using improved drinking water sources accessible on premises, available when needed, and free from
contamination, 2017 (%)
between urban and rural are small. In Paraguay, urban and
rural areas have similar levels of accessibility and availability
20
but there is a 21 percentage point gap in water quality.
In Iraq, drinking water service levels are lowest among the poorest in rural areas
0 Increasingly, information for all three criteria for safely
0 20 40 60 80 100
Improved (%)
managed drinking water services is being collected through
National Rural Rural poorest
national household surveys. This enables much more detailed
Quality vs improved analysis of inequalities in service levels between population
100 sub-groups. Figure 54 shows coverage of drinking water
services meeting each of the SDG criteria among national and
Improved and free from contamination (%)

rural populations and the poorest rural quintile in Iraq.


80

Use of improved sources accessible on premises was higher


60
at national level and in rural areas than among the poorest
39% 31%
in rural areas, with similar differences in the use of improved
40 sources available when needed. However, there were much 9%
larger inequalities in drinking water quality, which was the
20
limiting factor for safely managed services in Iraq in 2018.
The area of overlap between the three circles shows that
39% of the national population used improved sources
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
meeting all three criteria, compared with 31% in rural areas Accessible on premises Available when needed Free from contamination Safely managed service

Improved (%) and just 9% among the poorest rural quintile.


FIGURE 53 Proportion of population using improved water sources, and FIGURE 55 Proportion of population using improved drinking water sources accessible on premises, available when needed, and free from contamination,
12
The JMP will only make an estimate for safely managed drinking water where data
using improved sources accessible on premises, available when are available on water quality and for either accessibility or availability for at least half
Iraq, 2018 (%)
needed, and free from contamination, by country, 2017 (%) of the relevant population. Note: Rural poorest estimated based on reported values for ‘rural’ and ‘poor’

50 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN SAFELY MANAGED SERVICES SPECIAL FOCUS ON INEQUALITIES / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN SAFELY MANAGED SERVICES 51
Accessible on premises
In 2017, 75% of the world’s population (5.7 billion people) than doubled from 114 million in 2000 to 275 million in 2017.
used improved drinking water sources located on premises, Three out of four people with improved sources on premises
compared with 61 % (3.8 billion people) in 2000. While lived in urban areas.
coverage in urban areas (87%) remains higher than in rural
areas (60%), the gap between urban and rural decreased The recent expansion of the JMP inequalities database has
from 47 to 27 percentage points between 2000 and 2017. enabled further analysis of inequalities by facility type and
service level. Figure 56 shows global, regional and national
Accessibility of drinking water services has increased in all coverage of improved sources accessible on premises in Latin
SDG regions, except for Oceania (Figure 55). The greatest America and the Caribbean, and highlights sub-national
increases were recorded in Central and Southern Asia and inequalities in Guyana. While accessibility on premises in
Eastern and South-eastern Asia, where coverage has risen Guyana is higher than the regional average, and inequalities
by 23 and 20 percentage points. The respective numbers between urban and rural are relatively small, there is a large
of people gaining improved sources on premises in these gap between the poorest and the other wealth quintiles,
regions were 639 million and 625 million. Sub-Saharan and significant inequalities in accessibility between sub-
Africa had the lowest baseline coverage in 2000, and while national regions. Accessibility on premises in the two most
coverage has increased by fewer than ten percentage points, disadvantaged sub-national regions is closer to the regional
the population with improved sources on premises has more average for Sub-Saharan Africa.

Since 2000, Central and Southern Asia and Eastern and South-eastern Asia have recorded the largest increases in
improved drinking water on premises

30

20
23 20
10 13
12 11
9 9 4
1 9 4 Accessibility on premises varies widely between sub-national regions in Guyana
0
-1
-10
Change in improved drinking water on premises, 2000-2017 (% pt) Global Regions Countries Urban/Rural Wealth quintiles Sub-national regions

Central and Northern Eastern and Latin America Europe and Australia Landlocked Least Small Island
Sub-Saharan Oceania Southern Africa and South-Eastern and the Northern and New Developing Developed Developing World 100 Urban
Africa Latin America Richest Demerara-
Asia Western Asia Asia Caribbean America Zealand Countries Countries States
and the Guyana Mahaica

drinking water sources accessible on premises (%)


Rural
Improved drinking water on premises in 2017 (%) 3
Caribbean

Proportion of the population using improved


100

98 80
93 95
World
80 84 86
Poorest
75 60
67 68
60

40 40

37 35 37
27
20
20 Potaro-
Siparuni

0
FIGURE 56 Proportion of population using improved drinking water sources on premises in 2017, and percentage point change 2000-2017, by region (%)

FIGURE 57 Inequalities in use of improved drinking water sources on premises, Guyana, 2017 (%)

52 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN SAFELY MANAGED SERVICES SPECIAL FOCUS ON INEQUALITIES / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN SAFELY MANAGED SERVICES 53
Available when needed In 2017, 82% of the world’s population (6.2 billion people) used Disaggregated data reveal significant inequalities in
improved water sources available when needed, compared availability of drinking water when needed. Figure 58
with 74% (4.6 billion people) in 2000. Between 2000 and shows that while availability of drinking water in
Since 2000, use of improved sources with water available when needed has increased in all regions.
2017, service levels in rural areas increased steadily, from 62% Mexico is below the average for Latin America and the
30 to 74%, but have remained unchanged at 88% in urban areas. Caribbean, all population groups are equally affected.
20
Figure 57 shows that availability of drinking water when needed While availability is significantly higher among the richest
increased in all SDG regions with estimates available. Northern than among other wealth quintiles, the inequalities in
17
10 14
13 11 5 13 4 Africa and Western Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Central and South availability between urban and rural and between sub
3 10 8
0 Asia and Eastern and South-eastern Asia all recorded increases national regions are relatively small.
Change in improved drinking water available when needed 2000-2017 (% pt) of at least ten percentage points, while Landlocked Developing
Sub-Saharan Latin America
Northern
Central and Eastern and Australia and
Least Landlocked Small Island Countries recorded an increase of 17 percentage points.
Africa and South-Eastern Developed Developing Developing World
Africa and the Caribbean Southern Asia New Zealand
Western Asia Asia Countries Countries States

Improved drinking water available when needed in 2017 (%)


100 Box 11: Different measures of availability
96
90
80 Information on the availability of drinking water when needed For the purposes of global monitoring the JMP combines data
80 82 82 may be collected from users themselves or from service on the number of utilities providing water at least 12 hours per
79
providers. Household surveys frequently include questions on day on average with information on the population served by
69 availability but use a range of different measures13. For the these utilities to calculate the proportion of urban and rural
60 66
purposes of global monitoring the JMP classifies households populations with drinking water available when needed.
57 58
who report having sufficient drinking water available within
40
the last week or month as ‘available when needed’. In cases Availability of drinking water in urban and rural areas varies
where households report the number of hours per day or per widely across countries
week that water is available, the JMP classifies those with
100 Ethiopia
water available most of the time, that is at least 12 hours per
20
day or 4 days per week, as ‘available when needed’. Data from
recent household surveys shows that there are often significant

Water availability in rural areas (%)


80
differences in availability in urban and rural areas but that
0
patterns of inequality vary across countries (Figure 59). For
example, in Ethiopia availability is higher in rural (95%) than in 60 South Africa
FIGURE 58 Proportion of population using improved drinking water sources available when needed in 2017, and percentage point change 2000-2017, by region (%) urban areas (65%), while the reverse is true in South Africa with
Note: No estimates available for SDG region Europe and Northern America
87% reporting having water available when needed in urban
compared with just 67% in rural. 40

Regulators are a another major source of data on the


Availability when needed is significantly higher among the richest quintile in Mexico
availability of drinking water and often publish data on the 20
number of service hours per day reported by utilities. For
Global Regions Countries Urban/Rural Wealth quintiles Sub-national regions example in Kenya, the Water Services Regulatory Board
(WASREB) publishes IMPACT reports benchmarking the levels 0
100 of service provided by different types of utility (Figure 60). 0 20 40 60 80 100
Water availability in urban areas (%)

Richest Mexico
13
Safely managed drinking water services – thematic report on drinking
improved drinking water sources available when needed (%)

City water. World Health Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund 2016, FIGURE 60 Drinking water availability when needed in urban and
Geneva <https://washdata.org/report/jmp-2017-tr-smdw> rural areas, selected household surveys 2012-2017 (%)
80 World Latin America
and the
Caribbean
Urban
Proportion of the population using

Mexico
Poorest Centro Regulatory data in Kenya are used to track national service level targets for drinking water availability
60
Rural 24

20

16
40
12

20 4

0
Very large Large Medium Small

0
FIGURE 61 Average reported number of service hours per day by size of utility, Kenya, WASREB Kenya Impact Report #9

FIGURE 59 Inequalities in use of improved drinking water sources available when needed, Mexico, 2017 (%)

54 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN SAFELY MANAGED SERVICES SPECIAL FOCUS ON INEQUALITIES / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN SAFELY MANAGED SERVICES 55
Water quality Disaggregated data reveal significant inequalities in drinking water quality

71% of the world’s population (5.3 billion people) used in urban areas exceeded 20 percentage points, while the Urban/ Wealth Wealth Wealth Sub-national Piped/
Global Regions Countries
improved drinking water sources free from contamination gap between the richest and poorest wealth quintiles in rural Rural national rural urban regions Non-piped

in 2017, compared with 62% (3.8 billion people) in 2000. areas exceeded 40 points. There were also large inequalities 100 Europe and 98 Chile 98
between sub-national regions. In Alto Paraguay, just one in North America
Between 2000 and 2017, water quality in rural areas
improved from 42% to 53% free from contamination, while five people used sources free from contamination, compared 90
water quality in urban areas remained largely unchanged with four out of five in Asunción. Household survey data also Latin America
Asunción 84
and the 82
Richest 80
at 85%. Use of improved sources free from contamination show that bottled water and piped water were much less likely 80 Caribbean Richest 79

Improved and free from contamination (%)


increased in all SDG regions with estimates available for to be contaminated than other types of improved sources. Bottled 73
World 71 Urban 72 Richest 67
70
2000 and 2017 (Figure 61). In sub-Saharan Africa, just Piped
one in four people used sources free from contamination in The integration of water quality testing into national Paraguay 64
60
2000, rising to one in three by 2017. Latin America and the household surveys has enabled the collection of data that
Poorest 53
Caribbean recorded an increase of 26 percentage points, is representative of the entire population, including those
50
which means that 234 million people gained access to in rural areas who are not served by utilities or covered by Rural 46
Mexico 43
sources free from contamination between 2000 and 2017. regulators. Data from recent surveys enable quantification 40
Poorest 37
of the risk of faecal contamination by supply type and by Sub-Saharan
Africa 33 Poorest 27
Disaggregated data can be used to analyse inequalities in socioeconomic group, and show that many people use drinking 30
drinking water quality between different parts of the country water sources at high risk of contamination (Figure 63). For Alto 24
Paraguay
example, in Sierra Leone, just one in ten people use sources Other
and between socio-economic sub-groups. Figure 62 shows 20
improved
19
that while 64% of the population of Paraguay used sources free from contamination and classed as low risk, compared
free from contamination in 2016, there were significant gaps with half of the population of Congo and eight out of ten 10

in service levels between urban (72%) and rural (46%), and people in Ecuador. In five of the countries surveyed, more
0
between the richest and poorest quintiles in each. The gap than one third of the population used sources classed as very
between the poorest wealth quintile and all other quintiles high risk.
FIGURE 63 Inequalities in use of improved drinking water sources free from contamination, Paraguay, 2016 (%)

Since 2000, Latin America and 30 Household survey data show that many people use drinking water sources at high or very high risk of faecal contamination
the Caribbean has recorded
the largest increase in the use 20 26 100
7 5 6 4
8
of improved sources free from 10 11
10 19 12 21
contamination 2 4 12
11
6 9 6 8 17
0 37 36 34 14 16
80 15 8
Change in improved drinking water free from contamination, 2000-2017 (% pt) 46
FIGURE 62 Proportion of population 49
using improved drinking 20

E. coli contamination (CFU/100 mL)


Europe and Least Landlocked
Sub-Saharan Central and Latin America
World
67 23 19
water sources free from Southern Asia and the Caribbean
Northern Developed Developing
29 19
Africa America Countries Countries
contamination in 2017, 7 24
and percentage point
60 27
Improved drinking water free from contamination in 2017 (%)
change 2000-2017, 100
26 13
by region (%) 29
98 15
40 24 79
80 77
82 32
16 60 63
57 58
71 23 19 47 52
60
46
62 20
9 29 33
23
40 14 17
10
37 40
0
33 Sierra Ethiopia Lao People’s Nigeria Nepal Philippines Côte Lebanon Congo Ghana Bangladesh Iraq Paraguay Democratic Ecuador
20 Leone 2016 Democratic 2016-17 2014 2017 d'Ivoire 2016 2014-15 2012-13 2012-13 2018 2016 People’s 2016
2017 Republic 2016 Republic
2017 of Korea 2017

0 Very high risk(>100) High risk (11-100) Moderate risk (1-10) Low risk (<1) Contaminated (>1)

FIGURE 64 Proportion of population using drinking water sources by risk of faecal contamination, selected countries, 2012-2018 (%)

56 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN SAFELY MANAGED SERVICES SPECIAL FOCUS ON INEQUALITIES / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN SAFELY MANAGED SERVICES 57
While microbial contamination of drinking water is Arsenic contamination affects large populations in multiple
a universal concern, the risk of contamination with countries
arsenic or fluoride is greater in some parts of the world
Bangladesh 25.8
than others. Figure 65 shows that in some countries Central and
Southern Asia
5.0
significant numbers of people use drinking water sources Pakistan

that exceed the WHO standard for arsenic of 10 parts per


billion, and therefore do not count as safely managed. Croatia 9.7

For example, it is estimated that at least 40 million Andorra 9.4


people in Bangladesh and 10 million people in Pakistan
Hungary 4.9
used sources exceeding WHO guidelines in 201714. Europe and
Northern America
However, national data also indicate that mitigation Italy 4.3

measures can reduce exposure to arsenic in drinking Denmark 2.3


water. For example, in Hungary, the population using
France 1.9
sources contaminated with arsenic has been reduced
from 40% in 2005 to 4.9% in 201715. Portugal 1.3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
14
In Bangladesh and Pakistan, the national standard for arsenic in drinking water is Population reported as exceeding arsenic standards (%)
50 parts per billion.
15
Summary report of Hungary under the Protocol on Water and Health, 2005;
FIGURE 65 Proportion of population using drinking water sources exceeding
National Public Health Institute, HUMVI database, 2017
WHO guideline values for arsenic, by country and region, 2017 (%)

Box 12: Water quality at the point of collection and the point of use
In Côte d’Ivoire, the risk of drinking water contamination increases between the point of collection and the point of use

SOURCE HOUSEHOLD
A growing number of national household surveys have integrated In Côte d’Ivoire, for example, the risk of contamination increases FIGURE 67 Proportion of population
by change in the risk
direct testing of drinking water for faecal contamination (E. coli). significantly between the source and the household. Figure 65
of drinking water
Households are asked to provide a glass of drinking water and shows that while 46% of the population used drinking water free contamination between
show enumerators the source where the water was collected from contamination at the point of collection, only 22% were using the point of collection Very high 33%
(for example, a tap, borehole, dug well, or river). Survey results drinking water free from contamination at the point of use in 2016. and the point of use, risk Very high
show that microbial water quality often deteriorates between the The proportion of households using drinking water at high risk of Côte d’Ivoire MICS 2016 (%) 40%
risk
point of collection and the point of use (Figure 64). When water contamination doubled between collection and use. Estimates based
supplies are located off premises there is an increased risk of on the quality of water at the source may therefore overestimate the
contamination, which highlights the importance of safe handling, number of people drinking water free from contamination.
storage and treatment of water within the household.

High risk 12%

Microbial water quality often deteriorates between point of collection and point of use

100
28% High risk
Point of collection
Medium
13%
Point of consumption risk
Proportion of population with drinking water

80 77
with no E.coli detected (%)

63 63
58 60
60 57
52 52
48 47 49 Medium
46 13%
risk
40 39 38 38
33
29
23 22
Low risk 41%
22
20 17 18
14 14
10 9
6 18% Low risk
3
0
Sierra Leone Ethiopia Lao People's Nigeria Nepal Philippines Côte d'Ivoire Lebanon Congo Ghana Bangladesh Iraq Paraguay Democratic
Democratic People's
Republic Republic of
Korea 2017

FIGURE 66 Drinking water free from contamination at point of collection and point of use, selected countries, 2012-2017 (%)

58 PROGRESS ON HOUSEHOLD DRINKING WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE 2000–2017 / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN SAFELY MANAGED SERVICES SPECIAL FOCUS ON INEQUALITIES / REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN SAFELY MANAGED SERVICES 59
SAFELY MANAGED SANITATION SERVICES Use of safely managed sanitation services varied widely between countries and regions in 2017

In 2017, 45% of the global population (3.4 billion people) Five SDG regions had urban estimates available and four Sub-Sa
haran
used safely managed sanitation services. National regions had estimates for rural areas (Figure 67). Latin Afri
ca
estimates were available for 92 countries and six out America and the Caribbean and Northern Africa and
Oc
ea
of eight SDG regions, representing 54% of the global Western Asia had estimates for urban but not rural, while nia

e
population. Coverage was higher in urban (47%) than in the reverse was true in Central and Southern Asia (Australia

Liechten

anza ublic
Sierra Leon
Unit

Switz

Monaco 100
Andorra 100

of T ed Rep
nia
ed K
rural (43%) areas, and two thirds of the population using and New Zealand only had national estimates).

Niger

gal
erland
Finla
Ne

stein

Mali

Sene
ingd

eria
the

Unit
safely managed services lived in urban areas.

ti
nd

bou
rlan

om

Nig
10
100

La
13
100

19
Est

l
na
u
21

Dji

tin
ds
Ge

val
26

io
on

99

a
rm

at

n
27

mo
Tu
98

Am
bia
ia

ria
rin
Be

an

36
97

va
lom
Sa

Re en e of (Plu
lgi

) li

er
of (Bo
97
um

Co
Au

ica
V tat ia
pu ezu )
Lu

48

ic a
S oliv
97
str

bl el
xe

an
B
m

ia

17
97
bo
r

dt
Sp do

ur

23
97
ai ua

g
In 2017, coverage of safely managed services was higher in urban areas in all regions n

he
Ec

24
97
Ita 97 ru
42
ly

C
Hu Pe

arib
ng 96
Gr
ar
y 43 Cu
ba
ee

bea
nla 96
Urban sanitation ladders nd 44 zil
De Bra

n
nm 95
ark 49 xic
o
Me
2 1 1 2 1 Cze 95 50
100
4 3 1 3 4 3 2 Open defecation
chia agu
ay
6 3 5 4 94 Par
4 6 5 Swe 55 uay
14 Unimproved den

erica
19 15 9 Urug
10 93 64
18 21 Limited Polan
19 d Chile

Europe and North Am


80 19 Basic 93 77
Malta
9 Safely managed 93 Algeria
18
46 22 Lithuania n
38 91 22 Lebano
54
60 32 28 Greece 90 27 Georgia
Channel Islands 90 39 Morocco
United States 90 41 Iraq
of America
40
85 83 88 48
74 France Armenia
72 70
25 86 61
61 Latvia Egypt
5 61

Asia
49 47 47 tuga
l 8 Wes
20 Por and t Bank
37 83 65 Gaza
Strip

tern
enia Tur
Slov 75 key
83
20

Wes
ia Cyp
vak 78 rus
Slo 82 Sa
and 78 ud

and
l
0 Ire 82 iA
rab
da 81 Tu ia
Sub-Saharan Latin Northern Eastern and Europe and Oceania Central and Least Landlocked Small Island World na 82 nis

ica
Ca ia
Africa America Africa and South- Northern Southern Developed Developing Developing d 94 Jo
n 81

Afr
rd
and the Western Eastern America Asia Countries Countries States Ic ela an
us
96 Isr
77

ern
Caribbean Asia Asia lar ae
l
Be