Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation 2014 update

Progress on

Drinking Water and Sanitation 2014 UPDATE

WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data Progress on sanitation and drinking-water - 2014 update. 1.Water supply - standards. 2.Sanitation - trends. 3.Drinking water - supply and distribution. 4.Program evaluation. I.World Health Organization. II.UNICEF. ISBN 978 92 4 150724 0

(NLM classification: WA 670)

© World Health Organization and UNICEF 2014 All rights reserved. Publications of the World Health Organization can be obtained from WHO Press, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland (tel: +41 22 791 3264; fax: +41 22 791 4857; email: bookorders@who.int). The World Health Organization and UNICEF welcome requests for permission to reproduce or translate their publications — whether for sale or for noncommercial distribution. Applications and enquiries should be addressed to WHO, Office of Publications, through the WHO web site (http://www.who.int/about/licensing/copyright_form/en/index.html) or to UNICEF, Division of Communication, 3 United Nations Plaza, New York 10017, USA (fax: +1 212 3037985; email: nyhqdoc.permit@unicef.org). 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 the World Health Organization 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 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 the World Health Organization 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 World Health Organization and UNICEF do not warrant that the information contained in this publication is complete and correct and shall not be liable for any damages incurred as a result of its use. The figures included in this report have been estimated by the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation (www.wssinfo.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. Photo credits: Cover: UNICEF/UKLA2013-00961/Schermbrucker; p11: WaterAid/Anna Kari; p23: UNICEF/NYHQ2012-0918/Dormino; p39: WaterAid/Rindra Ramasomanana; p47: UNICEF/NYHQ2012-2154/LeMoyne. Design and Layout: www.paprika-annecy.com Printed in Switzerland

Progress on

Drinking Water and Sanitation 2014 UPDATE

CONTENTS 6 FOREWORD 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

11 SECTION A: PROGRESS UPDATE 12 Global drinking water coverage and trends, 1990–2012 12 Regional drinking water coverage and increase since 1990 15 Progress towards the MDG drinking water target 15 An alternative indicator of progress 16 Global sanitation coverage and trends, 1990–2012 16 Regional sanitation coverage and increase since 1990 20 Progress towards the MDG sanitation target 21 Trends in open defecation, 1990–2012 21 Call to action on sanitation 23 SECTION B: HIGHLIGHTING INEQUALITIES 24 Visualizing inequalities 25 Subnational inequalities 26 Urban and rural inequalities 29 Inequalities within urban areas 31 Inequalities within rural areas 31 Inequalities based on wealth 33 Inequalities faced by marginalized and excluded groups or persons 33 Ethnicity, language and religion 36 Education 37 Intra-household inequalities 37 The challenge of monitoring intra-household inequalities 38 Conclusions 39 SECTION C: A FRAMEWORK FOR MONITORING WASH POST-2015 40 Universal access to basic services 41 Safely managed services 41 Safely managed drinking water services – recommendations of the Water Quality Task Force 43 Safely managed sanitation services – data gaps to be addressed 44 Expanding the WASH monitoring framework 44 Data evolution and revolution 45 New priorities for monitoring 47 ANNEXES 48 ANNEX 1: THE JMP METHOD 50 ANNEX 2: MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS: REGIONAL GROUPINGS 52 ANNEX 3: COUNTRY, AREA OR TERRITORY ESTIMATES ON SANITATION AND DRINKING WATER 74 ANNEX 4: TRENDS IN URBAN AND RURAL DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION COVERAGE, 1990–2012

FOREWORD  As we approach the Millennium

to be done. Where efforts are made,

Development Goals deadline, the

progress is possible. Between 1990

lessons, successes and remaining

and 2012, open defecation decreased

challenges are becoming increasingly

from 24 per cent to 14 per cent globally.

clear. This report highlights what we

South Asia saw the largest decline,

have achieved on water and sanitation,

from 65 per cent to 38 per cent. Some

and where we need to accelerate

countries stand out as examples.

efforts.

Efforts undertaken in Ethiopia have seen a decrease from 92 per cent to

 The good news is that since 1990

37 per cent. Cambodia and Nepal have

well over 2 billion people have gained

experienced similar declines.

access to improved sources of drinking water, and 116 countries have met the

 But while we can record successes on

MDG target for water. Almost 2 billion

open defecation, sanitation and water,

people gained access to improved

this report highlights stark disparities

sanitation and 77 countries have met

across regions, between urban and

the MDG target. More than half the

rural areas, and between the rich and

world’s population, almost 4 billion

the poor and marginalized. The vast

people, now enjoy the highest level of

majority of those without sanitation

water access: a piped water connection

are poorer people living in rural areas.

at their homes.

Yet, progress on sanitation has often increased inequality by primarily

 But much remains to be done. More

benefitting wealthier people.

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

than 700 million people still lack ready

access to improved sources of drinking

 Achieving a world of dignity for all

water; nearly half are in sub-Saharan

requires that we fashion a post-2015

Africa. More than one third of the global

development framework that will

population – some 2.5 billion people

eliminate these disparities. No one

— do not use an improved sanitation

should lack safe water and a hygienic

facility, and of these 1 billion people still

toilet. This report demonstrates that,

practice open defecation.

with concerted efforts, water and sanitation for all is attainable.

 These figures – and these realities demand that we break the silence

Let us commit to work together for this

and expand awareness of what needs

most essential of objectives.

Jan Eliasson Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  In 2012, 89% of the global population

sanitation facility. One hundred and

drinking water target, and 77 have

used an improved source of drinking

sixteen countries have already met the

already met the MDG sanitation target

water, and 64% used an improved

Millennium Development Goal (MDG)

(Table 1).

Fifty-six countries have already met the MDG target for both drinking water and sanitation

Drinking water

Sanitation

Drinking water and sanitation

Met target

116

On track to meet target

Progress insufficient

–

Not on track to meet target

Table 1. Number of countries that have met the MDG target for drinking water and sanitation, that are on track to meet the target, whose progress is insufficient to meet the target and that are not on track to meet the target1,2

 Even though progress towards the

 This 2014 update report of the World

drinking water sources and sanitation.

MDG target represents important

Health Organization (WHO)/United

The final section presents efforts to

gains in access for billions of people

Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)

strengthen monitoring of access to safe

around the world, it has been uneven.

Joint Monitoring Programme for Water

drinking water and sanitation services

Sharp geographic, sociocultural and

Supply and Sanitation, known as the

under a post-2015 development

economic inequalities in access persist

JMP, is split into three sections. The

agenda, as well as the challenges

and sometimes have increased. This

first section presents the status of and

associated with these efforts. Annexes

report presents examples of unequal

trends in access to improved drinking

at the back of the report provide

progress among marginalized and

water sources and sanitation. The

supplementary information on the JMP

vulnerable groups.

second section provides a snapshot

method, MDG regional groupings, data

of inequalities in access to improved

tables and trend figures.

 The MDG drinking water target

water source in 1990, 89% of the global

almost four billion people, now enjoy the

coverage of 88% was met in 2010.

population had access in 2012, an

highest level of access: a piped drinking

Whereas 76% of the global population

increase of 2.3 billion people. Fifty-six

water connection on premises (Fig. 1).

had access to an improved drinking

per cent of the global population,

Progress towards the target

T hese assessments are preliminary; the final assessments will be made in 2015 for the final MDG report. Definitions are as follows: If 2012 estimate of improved drinking water or improved sanitation coverage is i) greater than or equal to the 2015 target or the 2012 coverage is greater than or equal to 99.5%: Met target; ii) within 3% of the 2012 coverage-when-on-track: On track; iii) within 3–7% of the 2012 coverage-when-on-track: Progress insufficient; iv) >7% of the 2012 coverage-when-on-track or 2012 coverage ≤1990 coverage: Not on track. 2 Of a total of 225 countries – for 33 countries, there are insufficient data on improved drinking water sources; for 40 countries, there are insufficient data on improved sanitation. 1

 The MDG sanitation target aims to

The MDG drinking water target has already been surpassed

The world is unlikely to reach the MDG sanitation target of 75%

without access to improved sanitation from 51% in 1990 to 25% in 2015. Coverage of improved sanitation

reduce the proportion of the population

MDG target: 88%

increased from 49% in 1990 to 64% in

2012. Between 1990 and 2012, almost

11 11

MDG target: 75%

two billion people gained access to an improved sanitation facility, and open defecation decreased from 24% to 14%

(Fig. 2).

 Although the world met the MDG 64

drinking water target, 748 million people – mostly the poor and marginalized –

still lack access to an improved drinking water source. Of these, almost a quarter (173 million) rely on untreated surface

1990

2012

World

World Piped on premises

Unimproved

Other improved

Surface water

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Fig. 1. Trends in global drinking water coverage (%), 1990–2012.

2012

Improved

Unimproved

Shared

Open defecation

water, and over 90% live in rural areas. If current trends continue, there will still be 547 million people without an improved drinking water supply in 2015.

Fig. 2. Trends in global sanitation coverage (%), 1990–2012.

 Despite significant progress on

large majority (70%) of those without

open defecation fell by a remarkable

sanitation, in 2012, 2.5 billion people

access to an improved sanitation facility

21%, from 1.3 billion in 1990 to one

did not have access to an improved

live in rural areas.

billion in 2012. Those one billion people with no sanitation facility whatsoever

sanitation facility, down from 2.7 billion in 1990, a decrease of only 7%. If

 Eliminating open defecation, a

continue to defecate in gutters, behind

current trends continue, there will still

practice strongly associated with

bushes or in open water bodies, with no

be 2.4 billion people without access to

poverty and exclusion, is critical to

dignity or privacy. Nine out of 10 people

an improved sanitation facility in 2015,

accelerating progress towards the MDG

who practise open defecation live in

falling short of the MDG sanitation

sanitation target. Over the past 22

rural areas, but the number in urban

target by over half a billion people. A

years, the number of people practising

areas is gradually increasing.

Closing the gaps: focus on equality in access to drinking water and sanitation  Section B of this report provides

 New analyses are included describing

disparity, indicating that coverage in

illustrations of disparities in access

the change in the disparity gap in

urban areas rose more rapidly than

based on data from nationally

access between urban and rural areas

coverage in rural areas. The analyses of

representative household surveys. These

and between the richest and poorest

access by wealth quintiles in urban and

surveys allow for the disaggregation of

populations in urban and rural areas.

rural areas show very similar patterns,

data by different stratifiers of inequality.

For drinking water, overall coverage

where coverage in the richest quintiles

The examples given in this report include

has increased, while the urban–rural

is first increased to between 90% and

spatial inequalities, such as disparities

disparity gap in access has decreased

100% before the poorest segments of

in access at the subnational level as well

since 1990 in 87 of the 116 countries

the population catch up.

as between and within urban and rural

included in the analysis. In 34 of these,

areas; it also highlights group-related

urban drinking water coverage has been

 The section also introduces four

inequalities, such as those based on

at 95% or higher since 1990, and the

different patterns of progress in

wealth quintiles, ethnicity, language

reduction in disparities is thus largely a

sanitation coverage across different

or religion, and individual-related

result of “levelling up” rural coverage to

quintiles. These patterns support and

inequalities, such as those based on

urban coverage levels. For sanitation, a

illustrate the findings of the above-

gender and education level of the

much larger number of countries have

mentioned inequality gap analyses.

household head.

recorded an increase in urban–rural

Looking ahead: WASH on the post-2015 development agenda  The final section of this report

than 100 WASH sector organizations

challenges associated with more

outlines a set of proposed targets that

and stakeholders. The broadly

ambitious post-2015 WASH targets. It

have emerged from a broad, sector-

supported set of proposed targets

reports on the great strides that have

wide technical consultation on drinking

provides a suggested framework for

already been made towards monitoring

water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH)

achieving universal access to improved

of drinking water, handwashing with

under the post-2015 development

drinking water sources and sanitation

soap and measurements to quantify the

agenda. This consultation was

facilities post-2015. The section

progressive elimination of inequalities

facilitated by the JMP and involved more

highlights some of the monitoring

of marginalized and vulnerable groups.

SECTION A: PROGRESS UPDATE

Global drinking water coverage and trends, 1990–2012  The MDG drinking water target, to

source, raising global coverage to

Saharan Africa, coverage of improved

halve the proportion of the population

89% in 2012.3 There were only three

drinking water supply was between

without sustainable access to safe

countries (Democratic Republic of

50% and 75%. In Latin America and the

drinking water (an increase in coverage

the Congo, Mozambique and Papua

Caribbean, the lowest levels of coverage

from 76% to 88%) between 1990 and

New Guinea) where less than half the

are found in Dominican Republic,

2015, was met in 2010. Between 1990

population had access to an improved

Ecuador, Haiti, Nicaragua and Peru

and 2012, 2.3 billion people gained

drinking water source. In a further

(Fig. 3).4

access to an improved drinking water

35 countries, 26 of which are in sub-

The lowest levels of drinking water coverage are in sub-Saharan Africa

91–100%

76–90%

50–75%

<50%

Insufficient data or not applicable

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Fig. 3. Proportion of the population using improved drinking water sources in 2012

Regional drinking water coverage and increase since 1990  Since 1990, drinking water coverage

 Caucasus and Central Asia is the

 Despite strong overall progress, 748

in developing regions has increased by

only MDG region that recorded a slight

million people still did not have access

17 percentage points to 87% (Fig. 4).

decline in drinking water coverage. At

to improved drinking water in 2012,

Eastern Asia, Southern Asia, South-

86% in 2012, the region ranks between

325 million (43%) of whom live in sub-

eastern Asia and Latin America and the

sub-Saharan Africa at 64% and South-

Saharan Africa.

Caribbean all reduced their population

eastern Asia at 89% (Fig. 4).

without access to improved drinking water sources by more than 50% – achieving their MDG target ahead of time.

3 4

Detailed country, regional and global estimates on drinking water are included as Annex 3. For more information on the MDG regional groupings, see Annex 2.

20 15

0 −1

-5

Latin America & Caribbean

Northern Africa

Eastern Asia

Southern Asia

Western Asia

99 89

South-eastern Asia

100 80

64 56

60 40 20

Caucasus and Central Asia

Sub-Saharan Africa

Oceania

Least developed countries

Developing regions

0 World

Use of improved drinking water (%)

Developed regions

Percentage point change 1990-2012

Drinking water coverage in the least developed countries increased from 50% in 1990 to 67% in 2012

Fig. 4. Use of improved drinking water sources in 2012, and percentage point change from 1990 to 2012

 Regions such as Northern Africa,

 Increases in piped water on premises

Nine per cent of the global population,

Western Asia and Latin America and the

are particularly pronounced in Eastern

or 748 million people, continue to rely

Caribbean, with largely middle-income

Asia, Northern Africa, Western Asia,

on unimproved drinking water sources,

countries, saw more modest progress,

South-eastern Asia and Latin America

of whom almost a quarter (173 million

in part due to high baseline (1990)

and the Caribbean, compared with

people) still rely on direct use of surface

coverage levels. Latin America and the

sub-Saharan Africa, which made little to

water (Fig. 5).

Caribbean has the highest drinking

no progress. Access to piped water on

water coverage among the developing

premises declined slightly in Oceania,

regions (94%).

as well as in Caucasus and Central Asia.

Most of the growth in the use of improved drinking water sources was from people gaining access to a piped drinking water supply on premises 4

12 25

1 8

24 27

2 11

1 7

20 32

1 7

3 12

72 55

28 19

31 92

2 9

38 83

7 17

0 1 4

33 23

0 2 6

53 48

12 63

1 5

9 20

1 8

56 45

17 7

1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012

1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012

1990 2012

Latin America & Caribbean

Least Developing Developed developed regions regions countries

World

SubSaharan Africa

Oceania

Piped on premises

Southern Asia

Southeastern Asia

Other improved

Caucasus and Central Asia

Eastern Asia

Unimproved

Northern Africa

Western Asia

Surface water

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Fig. 5. Trends in drinking water coverage (%) by developing region, 1990â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2012

ď ľ Between 1990 and 2012, 2.3 billion

improved supply, which could range

within Eastern Asia, China increased

people gained access to an improved

from a public tap to a handpump,

access for 488 million people, greatly

drinking water source: 1.6 billion gained

protected dug well or protected spring.

contributing to both their subsequent

access to a piped supply on premises,

Within Southern Asia, India increased

regional and global increases in

and 700 million gained access to an

access for 534 million people, and

coverage (Fig. 6).

Two out of five people without access to an improved drinking water source live in Africa Sub-Saharan Africa, 325 Southern Asia, 149 India, 92 Eastern Asia, 114 China, 112 South-eastern Asia, 67 Latin America & Caribbean, 36 Western Asia, 20 Northern Africa, 13 Caucasus and Central Asia, 11 Developed regions, 9 Oceania, 5

Fig. 6. Number of people (in millions) without access to an improved drinking water source in 2012, by MDG region

Progress towards the MDG drinking water target  The world met the MDG target

combination of a low 1990 baseline with

by 26 percentage points – which for

for drinking water in 2010, but 45

high population growth exacerbates

some meant a doubling of their 1990

countries are still not on track to meet

the challenges of meeting the MDG

coverage levels.

the target by 2015 (Fig. 7). Most of

target. On average, these countries had

these are in sub-Saharan Africa: the

to increase drinking water coverage

Most countries in sub-Saharan Africa are not on track to meet the MDG drinking water target

Met target

On track

Progress insufficient

Not on track

Insufficient data or not applicable

Fig. 7. Progress towards the MDG drinking water target, 2012

An alternative indicator of progress  The JMP has developed an

improved drinking water over the

which is assessed in terms of the

alternative indicator to assess a

past 12 years as a proportion of the

proportion of the population with access.

region’s performance irrespective of

current population, a different picture

whether it started out with high or

of progress emerges. In countries with

 Although sub-Saharan Africa is not

low baseline coverage. The indicator

low baselines and high population

on track to meet the MDG drinking water

represents the proportion of the current

growth, “halving the proportion of the

target, progress has been impressive.

population that has gained access to

population without access” requires that

Since 2000, almost a quarter of the

improved drinking water over the period

tremendous numbers of people gain

current population (24%) gained access

2000–2012.

coverage. In such settings, substantial

to an improved drinking water source

increases in the number of people

(Fig. 8) – that is, on average, over

 Looking more closely at the

gaining access may translate into only

50 000 people per day, every day, for 12

population that gained access to

small gains towards the MDG target,

years in a row.

A quarter of the current populations of Western Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia have gained access to an improved drinking water source since 2000 % of population that gained access

30 24

24 21

21 20

17 14 11

10 5

Caucasus and Central Asia

Oceania

Latin America & Caribbean

Eastern Asia

Northern Africa

South-eastern Asia

Southern Asia

Sub-Saharan Africa

Western Asia

Least developed countries

Developing regions

World

Developed regions

Fig. 8. Percentage of the 2012 population that gained access to an improved drinking water source since 2000

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Global sanitation coverage and trends, 1990–2012

 Despite increases in sanitation

sub-Saharan Africa have delivered results

Caribbean, the lowest level of coverage

coverage, progress has been slow.

in some countries, such as Ethiopia and

is found in Haiti and the Plurinational

Globally, 2.5 billion people do not have

Angola, progress is the second lowest of

State of Bolivia.

access to improved sanitation facilities.

any region after Oceania.

 The estimates for Oceania are

There are still 46 countries where less

 In Latin America and the Caribbean,

dominated by Papua New Guinea, which

than half the population has access to

seven countries have coverage of over

has 70% of the regional population

an improved sanitation facility.

90% (Fig. 9): Ecuador, Honduras and

and where sanitation coverage has

 Among the world’s regions, Southern

Paraguay stand out for their impressive

stagnated, decreasing from 20% in

Asia and sub-Saharan Africa continue

relative improvements, having increased

1990 to 19% in 2012 (Fig. 9).

to have the lowest levels of coverage

coverage by more than 25 percentage

(Fig. 9). Although accelerated efforts in

points. In Latin America and the

Regional sanitation coverage and increase since 1990  Since 1990, sanitation coverage has

developing regions. Fifty-seven per cent

increased by 21 percentage points in

of people in developing regions now use

Detailed country, regional and global estimates on sanitation are included as Annex 3.

an improved sanitation facility (Fig. 10).

There are 46 countries where less than half the population has access to an improved sanitation facility

91–100%

76–90%

50–75%

Insufficient data or not applicable

<50%

Fig. 9. Proportion of the population using improved sanitation in 2012

Percentage point change 1990-2012

Sanitation coverage increased most in large parts of Asia and Northern Africa 45

40 35 30 25 20

4 0

0 95

Caucasus and Central Asia

Latin America & Caribbean

South-eastern Asia

Eastern Asia

Southern Asia

Oceania

Sub-Saharan Africa

Least developed countries

Developing regions

Developed regions

0 World

Use of improved sanitation (%)

Northern Africa

82 80

Western Asia

100

Fig. 10. Use of improved sanitation facilities in 2012, and percentage point change from 1990 to 2012

 Progress has been greatest in

have also achieved a coverage increase

19 percentage points since 1990, to

Eastern Asia, where coverage of

that is higher than the average for the

reach 42% of the population in 2012.

improved sanitation has increased

developing regions.

Sub‑Saharan Africa, in contrast, has

by 40 percentage points since 1990,

 Where once levels of coverage for

made much slower progress in sanitation.

largely driven by China, which now

improved sanitation were broadly similar

Its sanitation coverage of 30% reflects

represents 94% of this region’s

in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa,

only a 5 percentage point increase since

population. The level of open defecation

progress in these regions is now markedly

1990. Nigeria has seen a decline in

in this region is only 1%. South-eastern

different (Fig. 11). In Southern Asia, use

coverage of improved sanitation, from

Asia, Southern Asia and Northern Africa

of improved facilities has increased by

37% in 1990 to 28% in 2012.

Southern Asia increased improved sanitation coverage at a much higher rate than subSaharan Africa 45 40 35

Coverage (%)

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

1990

1995

2000

Southern Asia

2005

2010

2015

Sub-Saharan Africa

Fig. 11. Trends in improved sanitation coverage in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, 1990–2012

 Access to improved sanitation

people without access to an improved

million use a facility that does not meet

increased in all developing regions

sanitation facility (Fig. 12), 784 million

minimum hygiene standards, whereas

except Oceania, where it remained

people use a public or shared facility

the remaining one billion practise open

steady at 35%. Of the 2.5 billion

of an otherwise improved type, 732

defecation (Fig. 13).

Globally, 2.5 billion people do not have access to an improved sanitation facility Southern Asia, 1001 India, 792 Sub-Saharan Africa, 644 Eastern Asia, 485 China, 478 South-eastern Asia, 179 Latin America & Caribbean, 110 Developed regions, 54 Western Asia, 24 Northern Africa, 14 Oceania, 7

Caucasus and Central Asia, 4

Fig. 12. Number of people (in millions) without access to an improved sanitation facility in 2012, by MDG region

Fourteen per cent of the global population, or one billion people, practise open defecation 13 25 38

10 26 9

3 0 6

1 13

0 2 3

1 6 2

82 5

89 80

72 7

Improved

Southeastern Asia

Shared

Oceania

Unimproved

Latin America & Caribbean

Western Asia

Northern Africa

Eastern Asia

11 21 11 13

Caucasus and Central Asia

64 57

43 10

1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012

SubSaharan Africa

14 24

0 2 2

0 3 2

7 Southern Asia

1990 2012

2 17

3 4 4

5 48

8 7

1990 2012

1990 2012 1990 2012

Least Developing Developed developed regions regions countries

1990 2012

World

Open defecation

Fig. 13. Sanitation coverage trends (%) by MDG regions, 1990â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2012

ď ľ Fig. 14 shows the number of people

MDG region. Within Southern Asia, India

access for 623 million people, greatly

who gained access to improved

increased access for 291 million people,

contributing to regional totals.

sanitation between 1990 and 2012, by

and within Eastern Asia, China increased

Almost two billion people have gained access to improved sanitation since 1990

Eastern Asia, 645 China, 623 Southern Asia, 450 India, 291 South-eastern Asia, 222 Latin America & Caribbean, 199 Sub-Saharan Africa, 147 Developed regions, 110 Western Asia, 90 Northern Africa, 68 Caucasus and Central Asia, 16 Oceania, 1

Fig. 14. Number of people (in millions) who gained access to improved sanitation from 1990 to 2012, by MDG region

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Progress towards the MDG sanitation target

ď ľ The world is not on track to meet the

gaining access since 1990, by the end

improved sanitation facility (one billion

MDG sanitation target; 69 countries

of 2012, there were 2.5 billion people

people) live in Southern Asia. At current

were not on track in 2012, 36 of them in

who did not use improved sanitation

rates, the world will miss the MDG

sub-Saharan Africa (Fig. 15). However,

facilities, only 7% fewer than the 2.7

sanitation target by over half a billion

there are countries that are not on track

billion without access in 1990. Forty

people.

in all regions. Despite 1.9 billion people

per cent of those who lack access to an

Of the 69 countries not on track to meet the MDG sanitation target, 37 are in sub-Saharan Africa

Met target

On track

Progress insufficient

Fig. 15. Progress towards the MDG sanitation target, 2012

Not on track

Insufficient data or not applicable

Trends in open defecation, 1990–2012  In March 2013, the Deputy Secretary-

open defecation. Open defecation in

of 11 percentage points between 1990

General of the United Nations issued

sub-Saharan Africa showed a decline

and 2012 (Fig. 16).

a call to action on sanitation that 6

included the elimination of the practice

Call to action on sanitation

of open defecation by 2025 (see box). Open defecation has declined

 According to the call to action

highest numbers of deaths of

considerably in all developing regions,

on sanitation issued by the Deputy

children under the age of five, as well

from 31% in 1990 to 17% in 2012.

Secretary-General of the United

as high levels of undernutrition, high

Southern Asia, which is home to two

Nations in March 2013, open

levels of poverty and large disparities

thirds of the world’s open defecators,

defecation perpetuates the vicious

between the rich and poor. There are

saw the largest decline (27 percentage

cycle of disease and poverty and is

also strong gender impacts: lack of

points), from 65% in 1990 to 38% in

an affront to personal dignity. Those

safe, private toilets makes women

2012. South-eastern Asia, Northern

countries where open defecation

and girls vulnerable to violence and

Africa and Latin America and the

is most widely practised have the

is an impediment to girls’ education.

Caribbean also saw steep declines in

Open defecation declined considerably in all developing regions between 1990 and 2012

80 65 60 45 40 24 20

38 36

31 14

32 13

13 12

16 3

1990

Eastern Asia

Western Asia

Latin America & Caribbean

Northern Africa

Oceania

South-eastern Asia

Sub-Saharan Africa

Southern Asia

Least developed countries

Developing regions

World

Caucasus and Central Asia

Proportion of population (%)

100

2012

Fig. 16. Proportion of population practising open defecation in 1990 and 2012

 The number of people practising

of 44 countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

India continues to be the country

open defecation is declining steadily

Eighty-two per cent of the one billion

with the highest number of people

in Asia and Latin America and the

people practising open defecation in the

(597 million people) practising open

Caribbean, but is still increasing in 26

world live in just 10 countries. Globally,

defecation (Fig. 17).

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/DSG%20sanitation%20two-pager%20FINAL.pdf

Eighty-two per cent of the one billion people practising open defecation in the world live in 10 countries India, 597 Indonesia, 54 Pakistan, 41 Nigeria, 39 Ethiopia, 34 Sudan, 17 Niger, 13 Nepal, 11 China, 10 Mozambique, 10 Rest of the world, 182

Fig. 17. Top 10 countries with the highest numbers of people (in millions) practising open defecation

 The top 10 countries that have

defecation since 1990 are shown in

Peru have reduced open defecation

achieved the highest reduction in open

Table 2. Viet Nam, Bangladesh and

prevalence to single digits.

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Viet Nam, Bangladesh and Peru have reduced open defecation prevalence to single digits

Percentage point reduction % practising open

% practising open

in practice of open

Country

defecation, 1990

defecation, 2012

defecation, 1990–2012

Ethiopia

Nepal

Viet Nam

Cambodia

Angola

Bangladesh

Pakistan

Peru

Haiti

Benin

Table 2. The top 10 countries that have achieved the highest reduction of open defecation since 1990, as a proportion of the population

 Despite having some of the highest

greatest strides in reducing open

people defecating in the open in 2012,

numbers of open defecators, India,

defecation. In fact, Nigeria has seen the

compared with 23 million in 1990.

Nigeria and Indonesia do not feature

largest increase in numbers of open

among those countries making the

defecators since 1990, with 39 million

SECTION B: HIGHLIGHTING INEQUALITIES

 Regional and national averages mask

and the poor, and sometimes between

 Different types of inequalities can be

inequalities. This section highlights

the sexes. It focuses on those living in

found in virtually all countries; however,

the inequalities that exist in access to

different geographic settings – in rural

sometimes insufficient data (e.g. on

drinking water and sanitation services,

areas compared with urban or slum

access by gender or people with a

showing how certain populations

areas, or those in remote provinces or

disability) preclude a global analysis

are being left behind. It focuses on

districts.

of many inequalities. The choice of

inequalities within countries, between

illustrative country examples in this

social groups (e.g. people of different

report is therefore based on data

ethnicity or religion), between the rich

availability.

Visualizing inequalities  An “equity tree” is one way to draw

dimensions of inequality. Fig. 18

progressing to capture the differences

attention to inequalities that would

looks beyond the different average

between Mozambique’s provinces and

otherwise remain hidden behind

levels of open defecation, beginning

finally showing a prevalence of 96%

averages. This type of analysis unpacks

with an illustration of the global

among Mozambique’s poorest rural

the averages based on different

open defecation prevalence of 14%,

dwellers.

Global, regional, national and provincial averages mask an open defecation prevalence of 96% among the rural poor in Mozambique

Open defecation prevalence (%)

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

100

77 South Sudan

Poorest 20% rural

75 Zambezia

65 Chad 60

57 Burkina Faso

60 Tete 50 Sofala

46 Sudan 40

38 Southern Asia 25 Sub-Saharan Africa 14 World

13 South-eastern Asia 3 Northern Africa

40 Mozambique

28 Sierra Leone 23 Nigeria

51 Rural

43 Nampula

Poorest 20% urban

37 Manica 28 Cabo Delgado 20 Gaza

13 Kenya

13 Inhambane

0 Mauritius

7 Maputo 2 Niassa 0 Maputo cidade

15 Urban 0

Richest 20% rural

Richest 20% urban

Fig. 18. Levels of open defecation in selected countries in sub‑Saharan Africa and provinces of Mozambique and urban/rural coverage among the poorest and richest households in Mozambique

 In 2012, open defecation was more

rural areas, where half the population

areas have nearly the same levels of

prevalent in Mozambique (40%) than

practises open defecation, compared

open defecation (50%) as the average

in sub-Saharan Africa (25%). Within

with 15% in urban areas.

rural population (51%). Within rural areas, nearly all (96%) of the poorest

Mozambique, different provinces have very different levels of open defecation –

 Dividing the urban and rural

quintile practises open defecation,

from 2% in Niassa to 75% in Zambezia.

populations for Mozambique into wealth

compared with 13% of the richest

Open defecation in Mozambique, as in

quintiles illustrates another dimension

quintile.

other countries, is more prevalent in

of inequality: the poorest 20% in urban

Subnational inequalities  As the open defecation equity tree

 A sanitation coverage trend analysis

the sanitation ladder, encouraging

shows, there is a strong correlation

for the 11 regional states in Ethiopia

communities to stop open defecation

between where people live and their

(Fig. 19) shows a welcome exception to

and construct sanitation facilities,

level of access to improved drinking

this. Since 2000, Ethiopia has managed

three subsequent household surveys

water sources and sanitation. Improved

to more than halve the proportion of

show a remarkably steep decline in

services have continued to be

the population that practises open

open defecation and steady progress

disproportionately more accessible to

defecation. National prevalence of

in sanitation coverage across all

more advantaged populations.

open defecation declined from 82%

11 provinces of Ethiopia, despite wide

in 2000 to 34% in 2012. Having made

variations in wealth, ethnicity and other

nationwide efforts to move people up

socioeconomic characteristics.

Ethiopia more than halved its open defecation rate from 82% in 2000 to 34% in 2012 and did so equitably across all 11 provinces 12 34

46 61

94 0

1 3 3

9 2000

2012

National

2000

2012

Afar

39 14

8 2000

2012

Somali

Improved and shared facilities

41 5 6

2000

2012

Gambela

2012

Tigray

Unimproved facilities

2000

2012

2000

2012

2000

5 2

BenishangulGumuz

2012

Dire Dawa

Open defecation

2000

Oromia

62 42

2000

14 47

24 13

37 56

2 0

14 2012

Amhara

2000

2012

Harari

2000

2012

Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People's Region

2000

2012

Addis Ababa

Source: Demographic and Health Surveys 2005, 2010, 2011

Fig. 19. Sanitation coverage (%) in Ethiopia, by province, 2000–2012

Urban and rural inequalities TRENDS IN PIPED WATER ON PREMISES, 1990–2012 There has been an impressive growth in the use of piped connections to a

More than twice as many people gained access to piped water on premises compared with other improved sources

dwelling, plot or yard. Approximately

1500

70% of the 2.3 billion people who gained access to an improved

1140

Piped water on premises

drinking water source between 1990 and 2012 gained access to piped

Other improved sources

water on the premises. Seventy-two per cent of the 1.6 billion people who gained access to piped water on premises live in urban areas. However, household piped connections are also

Population (millions)

1000

438

500

413

277

increasing in rural areas: over the past 22 years, more people in rural areas have gained access to piped water

0 Urban

on premises than to other forms of improved water supply (see Fig. B.1).

 In 1990, 8 out of 10 people without

 In 2012, the majority of people

population without sanitation in urban

without improved sanitation – 7 out

areas actually increased significantly

of 10 people – lived in rural areas.

of 10 people who gained access to

by 215 million to 756 million in 2012,

Rural coverage increased from 28% in

sanitation lived in urban areas. Since

due to population growth outpacing the

1990 to 47% in 2012, with 727 million

1990, 1.2 billion people have gained

number of people who gained access to

people in rural areas gaining access to

access to improved sanitation in urban

sanitation.

improved sanitation (Fig. 20).

areas, increasing coverage from 76% in

There are a billion more people without improved sanitation in rural areas than in urban areas 2500

2174

2000 Population (millions)

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

1990 to 80% in 2012. Nevertheless, the

Yet in the subsequent 22 years, 6 out

improved sanitation lived in rural areas.

1500

1767

1222

1000

756

727 541

500

1990–2012 Urban

1990–2012 Rural

Gaining access

1990 2012 Urban

1990 2012 Rural Without access

Fig. 20. Population gaining access to improved sanitation in urban and rural areas, 1990–2012

Rural

Fig. B.1. Population gaining access to improved water sources, 1990–2012

Trends in urban and rural sanitation coverage in developing regions from 1990 to 2012 are illustrated in Fig. A4-3 and A4-4 in Annex 4, respectively.

 Globally, open defecation remains

decreasing the urban–rural disparity in

a predominantly rural phenomenon:

access), whereas countries in the lower

902 million people in rural areas, more

right quadrant have seen an increase in

than a quarter of the rural population,

national coverage along with a decrease

still practise open defecation (Fig. 21).

in equality. Similarly, countries in the

Nine out of 10 people defecating in the open live in rural areas 1000

top left quadrant have decreased  Access to water and sanitation is

national coverage and increased

nearly always higher in urban than in

equality, whereas countries in the lower

rural settings, except for countries that

left quadrant have seen a decrease in

have achieved universal coverage. By

national coverage along with a decrease

calculating the gap in coverage between

in equality.

900

800

urban and rural areas and tracking this  In countries with high baseline

urban–rural gaps are decreasing in a

coverage in urban areas, overall

majority of countries.

progress is likely to reduce urban-rural gaps. In the four-quadrant graphs, a

 In this report, a new way to visualize

triangle symbol is used to indicate the

progress is presented. The change in

countries where the group with higher

inequality is plotted against the change

access (e.g. urban populations) had

in coverage in four-quadrant graphs.

95% or higher coverage in the baseline

These graphs shed light on the nature

year.

700

Population (millions)

gap over time, it becomes clear that

600

500 902 400

300

of inequalities in access to improved sanitation and drinking water coverage

 Fig. 22 presents the degree to

in rural and urban areas.

which urban–rural disparities in access

200

to improved sanitation narrowed or  These four-quadrant graphs are a

widened among countries. In the lower

powerful tool for tracking progress on

right quadrant, progress has been faster

eliminating inequalities. In the first two

in urban than in rural areas, increasing

four-quadrant graphs, countries in the

the urban–rural gap. Examples include

top right quadrant have increased both

Cambodia, Central African Republic and

national coverage and equality (i.e.

Mauritania.

100 105 0 Urban

Rural

Fig. 21. Population practising open defecation in urban and rural areas, 2012

Sixty-two countries increased sanitation coverage and decreased urban–rural disparities in coverage between 1990 and 2012

Reduction in urban−rural disparity (percentage points)

60 Reducing coverage Increasing equality 3 countries

Increasing coverage Increasing equality 62 countries

Maldives

Rwanda Mexico Fiji Morocco Egypt Honduras

World Ethiopia 0

China

Nepal

India

Viet Nam Paraguay Botswana Yemen Plurinational State of Bolivia

Russian Federation Sudan Nigeria

United Republic of Tanzania −20

Djibouti

Mauritania Central African Republic

−40

10 countries Reducing coverage Reducing equality −20

−10

Cambodia

21 countries Increasing coverage Reducing equality 50

Change in national sanitation coverage 1990-2012 (percentage points) Urban coverage ≥95% in 1990

Urban coverage <95% in 1990

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Fig. 22. Changes in improved sanitation coverage and urban–rural disparity in access, 1990–2012

 Fig. 23 makes the same analysis

faster in urban areas, leading to an

for drinking water. In the lower

increase in the urban–rural disparity

right quadrant, progress has been

in access. Examples include Angola,

Guinea‑Bissau and Niger.

In three quarters of countries, drinking water coverage and urban–rural equality both increased

Reduction in urban−rural gap (percentage points)

Reducing coverage Increasing equality 7 countries Chile

Namibia

Iraq

China 20 Dominican Republic Yemen Sudan Algeria

World

India

Increasing coverage Increasing equality 87 countries Malawi Paraguay Swaziland Ghana Viet Nam

Ethiopia Myanmar Uganda Burkina Faso

Cameroon Sierra Leone

0 Uzbekistan Chad

−20

Djibouti

Cambodia

Niger

Guinea−Bissau

Angola −40

15 countries Increasing coverage Reducing equality

7 countries Reducing coverage Reducing equality −20

−10

Mali

0 10 20 30 40 50 Change in national drinking−water coverage 1990-2012 (percentage points) Urban coverage ≥95% in 1990

Urban coverage <95% in 1990

Fig. 23. Changes in improved drinking water coverage and urban–rural gap, 1990–2012

 These graphs can be used by

countries, rural coverage increased

rural coverage increased. Cambodia

countries to aim for progress towards

faster than urban coverage, or coverage

is an example of a country that has

the upper right quadrant of the chart.

in rural areas was catching up with

seen rapid expansion of coverage in

Indeed, roughly three quarters of

urban coverage, which already was at a

both water and sanitation, but where

countries fall in the top right quadrant

very high level. Only in a few cases did

progress has been faster in urban areas,

for both water and sanitation. For these

urban coverage actually decline while

increasing urban-rural gaps.

 Urban populations tend to have

 Improving coverage in informal urban

higher reliance on water kiosks in the

better access to improved water supply

settlements may require innovative

informal settlements and less access

and sanitation compared with rural

approaches, such as pay-as-you-go

to piped supplies on premises. Informal

populations. However, there are also

services offered at water kiosks or

settlements themselves are far from

often striking intra-urban disparities

public water points as an intermediate

homogeneous; almost a third of those

in access. Those living in low-income,

step towards a higher level of service.

who are better off in the informal

informal or illegal settlements tend

Fig. 24 shows how coverage levels

settlements have a piped water supply

to have lower levels of access to an

in informal settlements in Mombasa

on premises, whereas the poorest are

improved water supply.

differ from average coverage levels

twice as likely as the richest to rely on

in urban Kenya. There is a much

water kiosks.

Inequalities within urban areas

People living in informal settlements in Mombasa rely more heavily on water kiosks and have less access to piped supplies on premises

Drinking water coverage (%)

100

Other unimproved

Cart with small tank/drum 60 Other improved 40 Water kiosk 20

Neighbour's tap/public tap Piped on premises

0 Kenya Urban

Mombasa Informal areas

Low

Medium

High

Wealth

Source: Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey, Mombasa informal areas, 2006 and Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2008

ď ľ Using data from the same survey,

coverage in urban Kenya. When further

use flush toilets, compared with less

Fig. 25 shows that sanitation coverage

disaggregating the informal settlement

than 10% among the poorest. Open

in the informal settlements of

population by relative wealth, a striking

defecation is practised by the lowest

Mombasa does not differ very much

disparity is seen in the use of flush

wealth category.

from the overall urban sanitation

toilets: almost 70% of the wealthiest

Open defecation is practised exclusively by the poorest in informal settlements in Mombasa 100 Open defecation 80 Sanitation coverage (%)

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Fig. 24. Trends in drinking water coverage in informal settlements in Mombasa, Kenya

Unimproved facility

Ventilated improved pit/ pit latrine with slab

20 Flush to sewer/septic tank/pit 0 Kenya Urban

Mombasa Informal areas

Low

Medium

High

Wealth

Source: Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey, Mombasa informal areas, 2006 and Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2008

Fig. 25. Trends in improved sanitation coverage in informal settlements in Mombasa, Kenya

Inequalities within rural areas  Urban development concentrates

far from roads, may have markedly

improved sanitation coverage in rural

services near capital cities, towns or

lower access to improved water and

areas without road access was less

large regional and provincial centres.

sanitation compared with populations

than half the rural average (Fig. 26).

Within rural areas, remote and

that are easier to reach. In Lao People’s

difficult-to-reach areas, such as those

Democratic Republic, for example,

Sanitation coverage in rural areas with road access is twice that in rural areas without road access in Lao People’s Democratic Republic

Sanitation coverage (%)

100

80 60

40 51

23 0 Rural without road

South

Rural with road

Improved and shared facility

Lao People's Democratic Republic

North

Unimproved facility

Central

Urban

Open defecation

Source: Lao People’s Democratic Republic Social Indicator Survey, 2011–2012

Fig. 26. Sanitation coverage by geographic region, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, 2011–2012

Inequalities based on wealth  Wealth underpins access to

 The difference in coverage between

the upper right quadrant; as well, any

improved water supply and sanitation

the richest and poorest 20% of the

progress in the marginalized population

and the ability to practise improved

population, called quintile gap inequality,

will almost automatically result in a

hygiene behaviours. There is a strong

is a good indicator of wealth-based

reduction of the inequality gap. Countries

relationship between wealth, as

inequality. If progress primarily benefits

where coverage has decreased will plot in

measured by household assets, and

the wealthy, quintile gap inequality

the left-hand quadrants.

use of improved water sources and

will increase over time as the wealth

sanitation. The household surveys

gaps widen. These countries will be

 For urban sanitation (Fig. 27), the

used by the JMP collect information

found in the lower right quadrant of the

majority of the 75 countries for which

on household assets, which is used

four-quadrant graphs presented below.

wealth quintile data are available8 are

to construct a wealth index, ranking

Conversely, faster increases in coverage

in the upper right quadrant, having

each household by relative wealth.

among the population in the poorest

demonstrated both an increase

The population can thus be divided

quintiles reduce the gap between rich

in coverage and a reduction in the

into wealth quintiles, each group

and poor, and countries will plot in the

inequality gap. For rural sanitation

representing 20% of the population,

upper right quadrant. Countries where

(Fig. 28), many more countries are in the

be it for households in urban and rural

the reference population had already

lower right quadrant, where they have

areas or at the national level.

reached a very high level of access in

increased coverage but also have seen a

the baseline year are likely to end up in

widening of the quintile gap inequality.

For a few countries, 1995 sanitation coverage figures are not available. Also for a few countries, the change in quintile gap is exactly zero, so countries plot on a line between quadrants.

Reduction in quintile gap inequality (percentage points)

For urban sanitation, most countries demonstrate both an increase in coverage and a narrowing of the quintile gap inequality 40

Yemen

Decreasing coverage Increasing equality 8 countries

South Africa

Paraguay

Ukraine 20

Belize

Nigeria

Zambia

Mauritania Namibia

−10 −20

Cambodia

Viet Nam

Nepal 10

Increasing coverage Increasing equality 40 countries

Burundi Lao People’s Democratic Republic United Republic of Tanzania 17 countries Increasing coverage Decreasing equality Guinea−Bissau

6 countries Decreasing coverage Decreasing equality −20

−10

Change in urban improved sanitation coverage (percentage points)

Source: Demographic and Health Surveys, Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys and World Health Surveys 1990-2010

Fig. 27. Reduction in quintile gap inequality/change in improved sanitation coverage in urban areas, 1995–2010

Reduction in quintile gap inequality (percentage points)

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

For rural sanitation, half of the countries demonstrate an increase in coverage but a decrease in equality Decreasing coverage Increasing equality 3 countries

Lesotho Côte d’Ivoire

Brazil

Tunisia Colombia Peru

Georgia

Morocco Rwanda Ethiopia

Nigeria Zimbabwe

Viet Nam India Indonesia Namibia Cambodia Yemen Paraguay

−20

−40

4 countries Decreasing coverage Decreasing equality

−10

35 countries Increasing coverage Decreasing equality

Pakistan Nepal

Lao People’s Democratic Republic

Senegal −20

Mexico

Honduras

Gambia

Increasing coverage Increasing equality 28 countries

Egypt

Change in rural improved sanitation coverage (percentage points)

Source: Demographic and Health Surveys, Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys and World Health Surveys 1990-2010

Fig. 28. Reduction in quintile gap inequality/change in improved sanitation coverage in rural areas, 1995–2010

 An increase in rural sanitation

 Fig. 29 presents four key typologies

illustrated by the example from rural

coverage often comes with an increase

in sanitation progress, according to

Peru. Notably, rural Peru shows low

in inequality in the short term. As rural

access by the different wealth quintiles

relative inequality but low levels of

sanitation nears 100%, quintile gap

of the population:

access, even in the richest quintiles. Any gains in improved coverage have

inequality decreases, and countries plot in the upper right quadrant. In contrast,

been fairly evenly distributed across

 Type 1: Uneven progress across

increases in urban sanitation coverage

wealth quintiles – In some

tend to reduce quintile gap inequalities.

countries, progress continues to

all quintiles.

disproportionately benefit the wealthy,

 Type 3: Levelling up – Levelling up

 Cambodia provides a further example

and wealth gaps increase, as shown in

of coverage in the lowest quintiles

of this trend. Cambodia stands out for

the example from rural Pakistan: the

is largely observed in higher middle

its achievements in increasing access

bottom 40–60% of the population has

income countries. In the example

to improved drinking water sources

hardly benefited from improvements

from urban Cambodia, the populations

and sanitation in urban areas. Urban

in sanitation. Most of those who

in the top two quintiles already have

sanitation increased 48 percentage

gained access are in the top two

coverage close to 100%, whereas the

points, from 27% in 1995 to 75% in

quintiles.

populations in the other quintiles are catching up rapidly.

2010, while reducing quintile gap inequality. Gains in rural sanitation are

 Type 2: Equitable progress across all

also impressive, rising from 4% to 23%,

wealth quintiles – Some countries

but with the wealthy benefiting more

see strong increases across wealth

shows stagnating levels of improved

than the poor.

quintiles, with progress at comparable

sanitation coverage across all wealth

rates irrespective of wealth, as

quintiles.

 Type 4: Stagnation – The example

Inequalities faced by marginalized and excluded groups or persons  Household surveys typically allow

ways in which inequality manifests.

or individual-related inequalities are

for the disaggregation of data by

The exact dimensions of inequality

common to every country of the globe,

gender, ethnicity, language, education

vary from country to country, as well as

the examples presented in this section

and religion. These data can be used

across countries, depending on ethnic,

are mostly drawn from single countries.

to determine whether certain groups

language and religious differences.

These countries are used as illustrative

are systematically disadvantaged in

This section also gives examples of

examples of common trends; they have

terms of access to improved drinking

those individual-related inequalities

not been singled out for comment,

water supply and sanitation relative

that affect access to improved water

but have been identified based on the

to other groups in society. The rest of

and sanitation, such as gender and

available evidence.

this section considers the particular

education levels. Although spatial, group

Ethnicity, language and religion  Lao People’s Democratic Republic

with more traditional ways of life.

have had an impact on equitable

is a diverse country, with many

Although Lao People’s Democratic

coverage. Open defecation among the

ethno-linguistic groups. Lao-Tai is

Republic has made some gains

Chinese Tibetan and Mon-Khmer groups

the dominant ethno-linguistic group

in access to improved sanitation,

is higher than among those who speak

in the country; Chinese Tibetan and

inequalities between ethnic groups,

Lao-Tai, indicated by mother tongue of

Mon‑Khmer are minority ethnic groups,

compounded by spatial inequalities,

the head of the household (Fig. 30).

Progress in rural and urban sanitation coverage can be described by four key typologies, according to access by different wealth quintiles Poorest

Poor

Middle

Rich

Richest 0

72 78

17 66

2 5 1995

9 4

2010

1995

2010

1995

2010

Poor

Middle 14

2 0

11 2 54

Rich 5 6

1995

2010

1995

0 0 4

2 10 2010

1995

1 10 2010

1995

2010

1995

2010

Richest 1 00 1 0 9

Poorest

Poor

Middle

Rich

Richest

72 92

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

96 87

100

38 11 4 0 1995

2010

Type 2: Equitable progress – Rural Peru

1995

4 0 0

12 2010

22 19

Type 1: Uneven progress – Rural Pakistan Poorest

4 2

1995

20 34

Richest

3 16

Rich

Middle

Poor

13 40

Poorest

1995

2010

1995

2010

1995

2010

2 3 2

1995

Type 3: Levelling up – Urban Cambodia Improved

2 1

2010

4 2 2

1995

5 3 2 2010

3 3 2 1995

5 5 4 2010

7 3 4 1995

9 4 6 2010

1995

2010

Type 4: Stagnation – Rural Burkina Faso Shared

Unimproved

Open defecation

Source: Demographic and Health Surveys, Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys and World Health Surveys 1990-2010

Fig. 29. Typologies of progress in sanitation coverage (%), 1995–2010

Sanitation coverage among minority populations in Lao People’s Democratic Republic is half that of the majority of Lao-Tai speakers

Sanitation coverage (%)

100 25

80 60

74 46

0 Chinese-Tibetan

Mon-Khmer

Improved and shared facility

Hmong-Mien

Unimproved facility

Lao-Tai

Open defecation

Source: Lao People’s Democratic Republic Social Indicator Survey, 2011–2012

Fig. 30. Sanitation coverage by mother tongue of head of household, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, 2011–2012

 Roma are one of Europe’s largest

Bosnia and Herzegovina, for both the

sanitation also exist within the Roma

minority groups, with significant

general population and the Roma ethnic

community. Whereas the richest Roma

populations in central and eastern

group. Although Roma are generally

enjoy levels of access similar to those

Europe. Fig. 31 shows combined access

disadvantaged compared with the

of the richest in the general population,

to improved drinking water sources

national population, sharp disparities in

there are large disparities in access

and sanitation, by wealth quintile, in

access to improved water sources and

between the poorest and richest Roma.

Population with access to both improved water source and sanitation facilities (%)

Disparities in access within the Roma population are more pronounced than differences between the Roma and the general population of Bosnia and Herzegovina 100 95 80

99 95

81 64

60 40 32 20 0 Poorest

Poor

General

Middle

Rich

Richest

Roma

Fig. 31. Improved water and sanitation coverage, by wealth quintile, for the general population and Roma ethnic group, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2010

 The Democratic Republic of the

Open defecation practices in the Democratic Republic of the Congo show disparities according to the religion of the head of the household

Congo has made remarkable progress in increasing use of improved sanitation facilities, with 14.7 million new users since 1990. However, although national

Animist

averages indicate overall improvements, these have not been evenly distributed

Kimbanguiste

across the population. People with

No religion

traditional animist religions tend to be more likely to practise open defecation

Other Christian

than those following Christianity, Islam

19 16

Protestant

or other established religions (Fig. 32).

Muslim

Catholic

Eglise de Réveil

Education  Those without an education are also more likely to defecate in the open. The

Jehovah's Witnesses

percentage of the population practising open defecation appears to decline with increasing levels of education. However,

Urban

there are exceptions. Some countries – such as Cambodia – still have a large

Rural

proportion of the population practising open defecation, even though they have Democratic Republic of the Congo

secondary education. In Ethiopia, it is notable that there is still a relatively

14 0

high percentage of the population with

that practises open defecation (Fig. 33).

Source: Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2010

Fig. 32. Open defecation practices in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, by religion of household head

Open defecation practices in Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Ethiopia and Nepal show disparities according to level of education Proportion defecating in the open (%)

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Proportion of population (%)

tertiary – or university level – education

70 60 50

48 34

30 20

0 Burkina Faso

Cambodia

No education, preschool

Ethiopia Primary

Secondary

Source: Demographic and Health Surveys 1997-2010

Fig. 33.

Open defecation practices according to level of education, 2012

Nepal Higher

Intra-household inequalities The monitoring of intra-household

drinking water sources and sanitation

disability, is challenging, as illustrated

inequalities, such as access to improved

facilities according to gender, age or

in the box.

The challenge of monitoring intra-household inequalities  Monitoring gender and other

 As these surveys collect

households; husbands working abroad

intra-household inequalities, such as

information about the sex of the head

may send remittances home— as a

access by people with a disability or

of the household, it is tempting to use

result, female-headed household may

use of sanitation facilities by members

the findings to assess disparities in

have additional purchasing power,

of different age groups, is challenging.

access between female-headed and

which could translate to better levels

Cross-sectional surveys, such as

male-headed households (see Fig.

of access. In some cases, the eldest

Demographic and Health Surveys and

B.2). However, the sex of the head

living member may traditionally be

Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys,

of the household may not reflect

considered the head of the household,

are large-scale surveys, they are not

actual responsibilities or decision-

even if she does not have influence

specific to the water and sanitation

making power in the household over

over household decisions. This makes

sector, and they measure access

obtaining access to drinking water and

the interpretation of disparities in

at the household level, not at the

sanitation. Nor can female headship

access by female-headed households

individual level.

automatically be equated to being

difficult.

Proportion of the population with an improved facility (%)

poorer than non-female-headed 100 86 80

80 70 61

43 40

20 10

0 Mongolia Sanitation: female-headed

Nigeria Sanitation: male-headed

Niger

Water: female-headed

Water: male-headed

Source: Mongolia: Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey, 2006; Nigeria: Demographic and Health Survey, 2008; Niger: Demographic and Health Survey, 2008

Fig. B.2. Access to improved drinking water sources and sanitation facilities in female-headed and male-headed households in Mongolia, Nigeria and Niger

 Similarly, household surveys

be used to draw conclusions about

Fig. B.3), as any observed correlations

that collect data on the presence

differences in access to water and

could be due to other determinants,

of someone with a disability within

sanitation by households with and

such as poverty.

the household should not generally

without someone with a disability (see

Proportion of the population with an improved facility (%)

100 87

80 68

65 59

56 41

16 9

0 Burkina Faso Sanitation: No one with a disability in the household

India Sanitation: Person with a disability in the household

Pakistan

Water: No one with a disability in the household

Water: Person with a disability in the household

Source: World Health Surveys 2003–2004

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Fig. B.3. Access to improved drinking water sources and sanitation facilities according to the presence of someone with a disability within the household in Burkina Faso, India and Pakistan

 These examples serve to illustrate

intra-household differences in access,

at the household level, and dedicated

that in order to better understand

data should go beyond those collected

studies or surveys are required.

Conclusions  This section of the report serves to

one another. Without specific attention

information on disparities that exist in

highlight the gaps in access to improved

to marginalized or vulnerable groups,

the use of facilities within a household.

drinking water and sanitation between

it is possible to see national averages

urban and rural areas, between different

improve while within-country inequality

 Tracking and reporting progress

subregions or social groups, as well as

increases.

after 2015 (see Section C) will require

between the rich and the poor. It shows

new indicators that are capable of

that it is usually the poor and otherwise

 Certain types of inequalities, such

measuring the levels of access of

excluded and marginalized populations

as those linked to urban and rural

specific disadvantaged groups, such as

who tend to have least access to

differences or wealth disparities,

people living in informal settlements,

improved drinking water supplies and

can be tracked through nationally

indigenous peoples, older persons,

sanitation. Interventions that do not

representative household surveys

people with disabilities, children and

have an equity focus may exacerbate

across many or most countries in the

women. These indicators will require

inequality by failing to reach the most

JMP database. However, this section

explicit targets for reducing these forms

disadvantaged subgroups. Closing these

also serves to highlight the limitations

of inequalities as well as strategies

gaps requires explicit consideration of

of existing tools. Certain dimensions of

and programmes to reach these

those who are being left behind. As the

inequality are not adequately captured

populations.

equity tree analysis illustrates, there

by most of the household surveys

are multiple dimensions of inequality,

currently in the JMP database: for

which can overlap, combine or reinforce

instance, they do not collect separate

SECTION C: A FRAMEWORK FOR MONITORING WASH POST-2015

 This report has focused on the status

the spatial and social inequalities faced

 Following an update on the post-

of and trends in inequalities in access

by the poorest and most disadvantaged

2015 technical consultations facilitated

to improved drinking water sources and

people. Enhanced data collection and

by the JMP on universal access to basic

sanitation. Equitable access to WASH

analysis are critical in highlighting

and safely managed services, this

is an essential element of the right

the kinds of inequalities shown in the

section reviews the key challenges to be

to water and sanitation. Progressive

previous section, as well as identifying

addressed by an expanded framework

realization of this right in general, and

those excluded from the overall gains

for monitoring WASH post-2015. The

for vulnerable and marginalized groups

made in increasing access to WASH.

expanded framework described here

in particular, requires further action at a

supersedes the proposal set out in the

scale and intensity sufficient to narrow

2013 report.

Universal access to basic services  The JMP convened a series of

process involved establishing five

100 experts from over 60 organizations

technical consultations on post-2015

working groups and facilitating an

worldwide over a three-year period.

WASH targets and indicators. The

extensive consultation with more than

 The proposed targets emerging from this process are, by 2030, to:  eliminate open defecation;

WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE

 achieve universal access to basic drinking water, sanitation and hygiene for households, schools and health-

WASH Post 2015

care facilities;  halve the proportion of the population

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Photo: Katherine Anderson/WSSCC

2.5 billion lack access to improved sanitation

Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) are essential for health, welfare and livelihoods. Increased access and better services lead to higher levels of school achievement and improved economic productivity. Yet too many people do not have these basic human rights. After 2015, we must do better.

The vision

without access at home to safely managed drinking water and sanitation services; and  progressively eliminate inequalities in access.

Universal access to safe drinking water, sanitation and hygiene

748 million people lack access to an improved source of drinking water

1 billion people practice open defecation

 It was widely agreed that the

The target By 2030: • to eliminate open defecation; • to achieve universal access to basic drinking water, sanitation and hygiene for households, schools and health facilities; • to halve the proportion of the population without access at home to safely managed drinking water and sanitation services; and • to progressively eliminate inequalities in access. These recommendations have been developed through an extensive technical consultation; over 100 experts from over 60 organizations worldwide have debated them during the last three years. They are ambitious, yet achievable. More information about the consultation process, corresponding definitions of terms and indicators, and the ways these targets contribute towards progress on poverty, health, nutrition, education, gender and economic growth can be found at www.wssinfo.org

WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE

JMP A5 English 2pp.indd 1

proposed post-2015 targets for WASH should build on the existing MDG targets – with non-discrimination and equity as central components. Achieving universal access to a basic drinking water source appears within reach, but universal access to basic sanitation will require a substantial acceleration in the pace of change. The targets go further to address “unfinished business”, including the shortfall in progress on sanitation as well as ensuring access

28/03/2014 09:45

Working groups on 1) drinking water, 2) sanitation, 3) hygiene, 4) equity and non-discrimination and 5) advocacy and communication.

for the hardest-to-reach people.

Central to the measurability and

to – and benefit – the poorest and most

series of post-2015 leaflets, together

monitoring of the draft proposals

disadvantaged people.

with more in-depth information on the

for post-2015 targets will be the

five working groups, available on the

development of tools for monitoring

 A summary of the vision and

JMP website at www.wssinfo.org/post-

to ensure that services are targeted

proposed targets can be found in a

2015-monitoring/.

 The need for all countries to achieve

the household or plot for other domestic

 stored on site (e.g. in a sealed latrine

“safely managed drinking water

uses (e.g. washing, bathing).

Safely managed services

and sanitation services” has been recognized by the post-2015 proposals.

pit) until they are safe to handle and reuse (e.g. as an agricultural input).

 Safely managed sanitation services include the regular use of a basic

 The proposed indicator for global

 Safely managed drinking water

sanitation facility (it is an improved

monitoring of access to safely managed

services reliably deliver water that is

sanitation facility that likely separates

sanitation services is:

sufficient to meet domestic needs

human excreta from human contact,

and does not represent a significant

and that is shared among no more than

risk to health. This implies a system

5 households or 30 persons, whichever

use a basic sanitation facility and (2)

that delivers water to the household or

is fewer, if the users know each other)

whose excreta are safely transported

plot and includes measures to prevent

at the household level, as well as the

to a designated disposal/treatment

risks and to verify water quality. The

safe management of faecal sludge

site or treated in situ before

proposed indicator for global monitoring

at the household, neighbourhood,

being reused or returned to the

of access to safely managed drinking

community and city levels through the

environment.

water services is:

proper emptying of sludge from on-site

 The percentage of people (1) who

cess pits or septic tanks, transport of

 Global monitoring of access to

the sludge to a designated disposal/

safely managed sanitation services

household or plot that reliably

treatment site and/or reuse of excreta

must engage at both the household

delivers enough water to meet

as needed and as appropriate to

and community levels. Households

domestic needs, complies with WHO

the local context. The percentage of

can provide information on the types

guideline values for Escherichia coli,

the population with safely managed

of sanitation facilities they use, as well

arsenic and fluoride, and is subject

sanitation services is defined as the

as any treatment and reuse of excreta

to a verified risk management plan.

fraction of households using a basic

they undertake. In communities where

sanitation service whose excreta are:

excreta are transported away from

 Use of a water source at the

 An improved water source (piped water, public tap/standpost, tubewell/ borehole, protected dug well, protected spring, rainwater) can be safely managed. Unimproved sources

households, information is required  carried through a sewer network to a

from service providers and/or regulatory

designated location (e.g. treatment

institutions regarding the transport,

facility);

treatment and discharge of wastes into

 hygienically collected from septic

the environment.

(unprotected dug well, unprotected

tanks or latrine pits by a suction truck

spring, surface water) are by definition

(or similar equipment that limits

 The JMP is currently refining

not safely managed. Delivered water

human contact) and transported to

definitions and potential indicators for

(e.g. through trucks, carts, sachets

a designated location (e.g. treatment

global monitoring of progress in this

or bottles) can potentially be safely

facility or solid waste collection site);

area.

managed, but if these are the primary

drinking water sources, other improved sources of water must be accessible at

Safely managed drinking water services – recommendations of the Water Quality Task Force  The JMP Technical Task Force on

on options for monitoring of drinking

 Drinking water quality is the

Water Quality Monitoring, which met in

water quality and water safety in

composition of drinking water at the

2010 and 2013, has advised the JMP

future reporting.

time of sampling. The most important

contaminants from a public health

water from improved sources is not

1.1 billion people drink water that is of

perspective are faecal pathogens

necessarily free from contamination.

at least “moderate” risk (>10 faecal

(faecal contamination is monitored

indicator bacteria per 100 mL sample).

using E. coli as an indicator organism)

 A new systematic review of the

Data from nationally randomized

and the elements arsenic and fluoride,

literature,10 commissioned by the JMP,

studies suggest that 10% of improved

which can occur naturally, especially

identified 345 studies with drinking

sources may be “high” risk, containing

in groundwater. The proxy for drinking

water quality data and has been used

at least 100 faecal indicator bacteria

water quality used to date by the JMP

to estimate global exposure to faecal

per 100 mL (Fig. 34). Water quality is

is use of “improved sources”, which by

contamination in drinking water. The

best in piped water and in high- and

their nature provide some protection

study estimates that 1.8 billion people

middle-income countries, compared

against faecal contamination. However,

globally use a source of drinking water

with Southern Asia and sub-Saharan

it is increasingly recognized that

that is faecally contaminated. Of these,

Africa.

Improved sources are frequently contaminated with faecal indicator bacteria 4 4

90 32 80

Proportion of population (%)

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

6 2 2 5

1 4 1 2 4 12

1 5 2 1 8

10 11

1 5 2 3

2 18

41 14

93 40 37

30 5

6 10

40 23

Latin America & Caribbean

Caucasus and Central Asia

South-eastern Asia

Southern Asia

Oceania

Sub-Saharan Africa

Developed regions

Piped <1 per 100 mL Piped >1 per 100 mL Other improved <1 per 100 mL Other improved >1 per 100 mL Other unimproved <1 per 100 mL Other unimproved >1 per 100 mL Surface water

Source: Bain R, Cronk R, Hossain R et al. Global assessment of exposure to fecal contamination through drinkingwater. Tropical Medicine & International Health. 2014

Fig. 34. Faecal contamination of drinking water (cfu [colony-forming units] of E.Coli/100ml), by source type and MDG region 10

7 2

Western Asia

Northern Africa

101 3 1

Eastern Asia

100

Bain R, Cronk R, Wright J et al. Fecal contamination of drinking water in low and middle income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2014.

 Spot measures of bacterial

important risks. Drinking water safety

contamination. Monitoring of water

contamination are not robust measures

can be ensured only when water supply

safety should therefore include

of water safety. Microbial contamination

systems are designed, constructed

both water quality testing and risk

can be highly variable in time and

and managed in a way that minimizes

management measures (Fig. 35).

space, and occasional testing can miss

and addresses risks that could cause

Monitoring of water safety should include both water quality testing and risk management

Regular testing, meets all relevant standards

Single test, meets standards for critical parameters

Water quality testing

Safe drinking-water

Unsafe drinking-water No testing Risk management Unimproved

Improved

Sanitary inspection

Water safety plans, audits, regulatory reporting

Fig. 35. Water quality testing and risk management for improved drinking water safety

 The JMP is developing a framework

surveys where water quality testing

Fig. 35. The JMP is in discussion with

for collecting data on both water quality

is planned, in Uganda, Ecuador and

drinking water regulators to see how

and risk management. Household

Ethiopia, water sector specialists will

the data collected by national service

drinking water quality is currently

visit the drinking water supplies and

providers or regulators could feed into

measured in nationally representative

conduct both water quality testing and

global monitoring of water safety. A

surveys in Bangladesh, Ghana, Nepal

sanitary inspection, which is a form

water safety monitoring package will be

and Pakistan. In some of the national

of risk management, as illustrated in

piloted in 2014–2015.

Safely managed sanitation services – data gaps to be addressed  The challenges of defining and

lives in urban areas; by 2050, this

projected growth present a growing

monitoring safely managed sanitation

proportion will increase to 7 out of 10

challenge of sanitation for the urban

services for excreta and wastewater

people. Almost all urban population

poor, who tend to rely on on-site

management are even more difficult

growth in the next 30 years will occur in

sanitation, requiring systematic

than the challenges associated with

cities, mega-cities and secondary cities,

management of faecal sludge.

safely managed drinking water services.

as well as the informal settlements of

Over half the world’s population now

developing countries. The statistics of

11 World population prospects: The 2012 revision. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, Population Estimates and Projections Section; 2014 (http://esa. un.org/wpp/, accessed 12 April 2014).

 Few reliable data are available, but

landfills, polluting the residential areas

Use” as well as “Sanitation and Health

best estimates suggest that up to 90%

inhabited by the poor. Urban sanitation

Guidelines”. Adjustments to JMP

of wastewater in developing countries

at scale depends on a whole sanitation

definitions are also under consideration

is discharged untreated directly into

chain approach.

to take into account situations where networked sewerage exists, but there

rivers, lakes or the ocean.12 Inequalities in access to improved sanitation are

 There are a number of initiatives

is no functional institutional and

compounded when sewage is removed

planned to help provide the data

management framework (policies,

from households of the wealthy, only for

that cannot be collected through

planning and budgeting, as well as

it to be discharged untreated or partially

household surveys. For instance, WHO

regulation) in place to deal with sewage

treated into storm drains, waterways or

is preparing guidance on “Sanitation

treatment and disposal.13

Safety Planning for Safe Wastewater

Expanding the WASH monitoring framework  Effective monitoring of safe

will require both drawing on existing

information from service providers and

management of water and sanitation

data collection methods as well as

regulators and user-reported data.

services, as well as universal coverage,

exploring new sources of data, such as

Data evolution and revolution  When the JMP adopted the use of

in preparation for the next generation of

log service users, monitor the actual

surveys and census data as the basis

WASH monitoring.

use of WASH facilities by all individuals

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

for monitoring progress in its 2000

within a household and document

report, it had access to data from

 Part of this 15-fold increase in the

the functionality of the service. For

about 100 surveys and many more data

availability of data from household

instance, mobile devices can increase

sources from administrative records.

surveys and censuses is due to the

the speed and ease of administering

This 2014 report uses 1500 datasets,

decreased cost of such data collection

surveys, greatly eliminating the human

primarily from household surveys and

measures. There are increasing

errors that are often associated with

censuses; only 300 datasets are from

opportunities to harness new digital

data gathering. Digital technology can

routine monitoring methods, such

technology and to tap into open-access

improve the quality and timeliness of

as administrative records. Country

and crowd-sourced data to enrich

data for decision-making, planning

estimates have greatly improved since

our understanding of how countries

and budget allocation in both rural and

the 2000 report, enabling their use

are progressing. Advancements in

urban environments. Digital technology

at regional and local levels for better

information and communication

also holds the potential to help monitor

WASH policy formulation, programme

technologies such as geographic

whether services are targeted to, and

design and resource allocation. With the

information system–enabled mobile

reaching, the most marginalized and

post-2015 era on the horizon, the JMP

devices provide a new set of tools to

vulnerable populations.

is reviewing its methods (see Annex 1)

map the location of infrastructure,

orcoran E, Nellemann C, Baker E, Bos R, Osborn D, Savelli H, eds. Sick water? The central role of wastewater management in sustainable development. A rapid response assessment. United C Nations Environment Programme, UN-HABITAT, GRID-Arendal; 2010 (http://www.unep.org/pdf/SickWater_screen.pdf, accessed 29 April 2014).

Baum R, Luh J, Bartram J. Sanitation: a global estimate of sewerage connections without treatment and the resulting impact on MDG progress. Environ Sci Technol. 2013;47(4):1994–2000.

New priorities for monitoring  Achieving the proposed post-2015

menstrual hygiene management)

monitoring require renewed efforts to

targets will require targeted measures

as well as WASH access beyond the

collect high-quality data that fill the

that encompass hygiene behaviour

household setting (schools and health-

current data gaps.

(such as handwashing with soap and

care facilities). These new priorities for

New indicators

 Handwashing with soap is notoriously

household members usually wash

from 35 countries and counting.

difficult to capture in household

their hands. Multiple Indicator Cluster

An analysis of the indicators from the

surveys and has not previously been

Surveys ask whether the household

12 countries with available data reveals

reported in JMP updates. Since

has any soap (or detergent, ash, mud

that the levels of handwashing with

2009, Demographic and Health

or sand) in the house for washing

soap are generally low in many of the

Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster

hands; if so, the respondent is asked

countries (Fig. 36); moreover, places

Surveys have routinely measured,

to show the handwashing material

for handwashing with water and soap

through observation, the availability

to the interviewer. Data on these two

are more likely to be observed in the

of soap and water in the place where

handwashing indicators are emerging

wealthiest households.

Places for handwashing with water and soap are more likely to be observed in the wealthiest households in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia

Poorest

Poor

Middle

Rich

Mongolia

Bhutan

Nepal

Swaziland

Zimbabwe

Senegal

Sierra Leone

Mali

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Malawi

Cambodia

Asia 100

Rwanda

Proportion of households with place for handwashing, water and soap (%)

Sub-Saharan Africa 100

Richest

Fig. 36. Proportion of households where a place for handwashing was observed and where water and soap (or other locally used cleansing agent) were available, sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, 2006–2010

New settings

 Most surveys report primarily on

experiencing inequalities related to

 A toolkit for monitoring WASH

household-level access. The technical

individual status. Although data are few

in schools has been developed for

consultations on post-2015 WASH

and often not nationally representative,

integration within national education

targets and indicators highlighted

a recent review of the literature14 found

information monitoring systems.

health-care facilities and schools as

that less than half of health-care

Data are currently available for about

important extra-household settings;

facilities surveyed in low- and middle-

70 countries, and the JMP is planning

new initiatives are under way to

income countries had at least one

to work with partners in the education

strengthen data collection on WASH in

functional improved water source within

sector to clarify WASH norms and

these settings, as well as to monitor

500 metres.

standards as well as to harmonize

access beyond the household for

indicators that can be aggregated for

disadvantaged groups and those

the purpose of global monitoring.

Strengthening national monitoring systems

 The post-2015 WASH sector

WASH data, which can be used for

reporting responsibilities and sustained

proposals for universal access as

national sector planning and tied to

institutional capacity building, together

well as safely managed services

systems of governance, participation

with independent regulatory authorities.

ultimately depend on enhanced national

and feedback that strengthen the

monitoring systems. It is envisaged

capacity of duty bearers to fulfil their

 In the run-up to 2015 and

that data collection will increasingly be

obligations to all rights holders.

beyond, the JMP aims to support the

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

conducted by national authorities and

development of these emerging areas

will require closer collaboration among

 Some countries have already

of monitoring, as well as to continue

WASH-related sector ministries as well

established inventories or management

to promote the standardization of

as the users of services, communities,

information systems that provide

datasets to ensure comparability across

civil society and the private sector. The

regular surveillance. This requires

countries and to encourage efforts to

real impact of stronger monitoring will

political will alongside sufficient human

ensure that these datasets are kept

be the greater availability of up-to-date

resources, dedicated budgets, clear

updated and sustained over time.

Landscape report on the status of water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) and environmental conditions in health care facilities. Draft report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.

ANNEXES

estimates that are comparable among definitions of “improved” sanitation facilities and drinking water sources can vary widely among countries, the JMP has established a standard set of categories that are used to analyse national data on which the MDG trends and estimates are based (see the categories and definitions

Unimproved drinking water

countries and across time. Because

of access to drinking water and sanitation to the right). The population data used

Surface water

Open defecation

Surface drinking water sources: River, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal, irrigation channels.

Open defecation: when human faeces are disposed of in fields, forests, bushes, open bodies of water, beaches or other open spaces or disposed of with solid waste.

Unimproved sources

Unimproved facilities

Unimproved drinking water sources: Unprotected dug well, unprotected spring, cart with small tank/drum, bottled water.

in this report, including the proportion of the population living in urban and rural

Other improved

areas, are those established by the UN Population Division.15 The definitions and data sources used by the JMP are often different from those used by report may therefore differ from national estimates. According to the JMP, an improved drinking water source is one that, by the nature of its construction, adequately protects the source from outside contamination, particularly faecal matter. An improved sanitation facility is one that hygienically separates

Improved drinking water

national governments. Estimates in this

Other improved drinking water sources: Public taps or standpipes, tube wells or boreholes, protected dug wells, protected springs, rainwater collection.

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Shared sanitation facilities: Sanitation facilities of an otherwise acceptable type shared between two or more households. Only facilities that are not shared or not public are considered improved.

Improved

Piped water on premises: Piped household water connection located inside the user’s dwelling, plot or yard.

Improved sanitation facilities: are likely to ensure hygienic separation of human excreta from human contact. They include the following facilities: • Flush/pour flush to: - piped sewer system - septic tank - pit latrine • Ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine • Pit latrine with slab • Composting toilet

DRINKING WATER LADDER

SANITATION LADDER

The coverage estimates for improved sanitation facilities presented in this of the population that shared an

Shared

Piped water on premises

human excreta from human contact.

report are discounted by the proportion

Unimproved sanitation facilities: do not ensure hygienic separation of human excreta from human contact. Unimproved facilities include pit latrines without a slab or platform, hanging latrines and bucket latrines.

Improved sanitation

 The JMP is tasked with providing

Unimproved sanitation

ANNEX 1: THE JMP METHOD

improved type of sanitation facility. The

regression involves retrofitting the entire

in many countries makes the use of

percentage of the population that shares

time series, estimates may differ from

more complex procedures inconsistent

a sanitation facility of an otherwise

and may not be comparable to earlier

with good statistical practice. When

improved type is subtracted from the

estimates for the same reference year

MDG monitoring commenced, linear

trend estimates of improved sanitation

(including the 1990 baseline year). This

regression was deemed the best method

facilities. This is derived from the average

is a result of adding newly available data

for the limited amount of often poorly

of data from household surveys or

and filling in missing data for past years.

comparable data on file (some countries

censuses with such a ratio.

Questions are often raised about the

had as few as two data points for many

appropriateness of using a linear trend

years), especially given the relatively short

 For each country, the JMP estimates16

line. It can be argued that other types of

time frame of the MDGs – 25 years is only

are based on fitting a regression line to

curve-fitting procedures might better

a fraction of the time needed to go from

a series of data points from household

reflect the progression of coverage over

no access to full coverage. Unfortunately,

surveys and censuses. Because the

time. However, the paucity of data points

the current use of linear regression to

orld population prospects: The 2012 revision. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, Population Estimates and Projections Section; 2014 (http://esa. W un.org/wpp/, accessed 12 April 2014). For communication purposes in its report, the JMP displays these proportions as rounded integers, which together add to 100% for drinking water and sanitation, respectively. For its database on the JMP website (www.wssinfo.org), we use unrounded estimates to achieve greater accuracy when converting coverage estimates into numbers of people with or without access. Any apparent discrepancies between the published estimates and those derived from the JMP website are due to the published estimates appearing rounded to the nearest integer. 17 Simple linear regression is used to estimate the proportion of the population using the following drinking water sources: - Piped supplies on premises - Improved drinking water sources - Surface water and sanitation categories: - Improved types of sanitation facilities (including shared facilities of an improved type) - Open defecation The remaining population uses unimproved drinking water sources and unimproved sanitation facilities, respectively. 15

derive estimates does not allow rapid

JMP database (see Fig. A1-1). The new

through its collaboration with several data

changes in coverage to be captured. The

estimates are based on almost 1500

repositories around the world. Table A1-1

increased availability of comparable data

datasets, nearly double the number

gives a breakdown by region of the data

now allows for the exploration of more

of datasets on file five years ago. The

added since the publication of the 2013

sophisticated modelling in preparation for

JMP has benefited from the increased

report, for the periods before and after

a new, post-2015 drinking water target.

availability of household survey data on

the year 2000.

websites of national statistics offices ď ľ Since the publication of the JMP 2013

as well as from the survey repository

progress report, 106 datasets from

of the International Household Survey

63 countries have been added to the

Network hosted by the World Bank and

The JMP 2014 report includes 106 new datasets for 63 countries

No data added

Data added for 2014 update

Insufficient data or not applicable

Fig. A1-1. Countries where new datasets were added since the 2013 report

Table A1-1. New datasets added to the JMP database since publication of the JMP 2013 progress report Number of datasets before 2000

Number of datasets since 2000â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2007

Number of datasets since 2008

Western Asia

Sub-Saharan Africa

South-eastern Asia

Southern Asia

Oceania

Northern Africa

Latin America & the Caribbean

Caucasus and Central Asia

Eastern Asia

Region

Developed regions Total

ANNEX 2:

Millennium Development Goals: regional groupings

Developing countries by regions Sub-Saharan Africa

Western Asia

Northern Africa

Oceania

Eastern Asia

Latin America and the Caribbean

Southern Asia

Caucasus and Central Asia

South-eastern Asia Developed countries

Least developed countries

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Not applicable

Developing countries by regions SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Réunion, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe

NORTHERN AFRICA Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Western Sahara EASTERN ASIA China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mongolia, Republic of Korea SOUTHERN ASIA Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka SOUTH-EASTERN ASIA Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, TimorLeste, Viet Nam

WESTERN ASIA Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, West Bank and Gaza Strip, Yemen OCEANIA American Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, New Caledonia, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Cayman

Islands, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Falkland Islands, French Guiana, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Martinique, Mexico, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, United States Virgin Islands, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) CAUCASUS AND CENTRAL ASIA Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan

Developed countries Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bermuda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Channel Islands, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Faeroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America

Least developed countries Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Lao Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia

ANNEX 3: COUNTRY, AREA OR TERRITORY ESTIMATES ON SANITATION AND DRINKING WATER

Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus

Open defecation

Australia

Other unimproved

Aruba

Shared

Armenia

Improved

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Argentina

Open defecation

Antigua and Barbuda

Other unimproved

Anguilla

Shared

Angola

Improved

Andorra

Open defecation

American Samoa

11 731 20 595 29 825 3 447 3 305 3 162 26 240 31 719 38 482 47 58 71 53 65 88 10 334 13 925 20 821 8 11 16 62 78 89 32 625 36 903 41 087 3 545 3 076 2 969 62 91 102 17 097 19 259 23 050 7 670 8 020 8 464 7 217 8 118 9 309 256 298 372 496 668 1 318 107 386 132 383 154 695 259 267 283 10 260 9 981 9 405

Other unimproved

Algeria

1990 2000 2012 1990 2000 2012 1990 2000 2012 1990 2000 2012 1990 2000 2012 1990 2000 2012 1990 2000 2012 1990 2000 2012 1990 2000 2012 1990 2000 2012 1990 2000 2012 1990 2000 2012 1990 2000 2012 1990 2000 2012 1990 2000 2012 1990 2000 2012 1990 2000 2012 1990 2000 2012 1990 2000 2012

Unimproved

Shared

Albania

Population (x 1000)

TOTAL

Unimproved

Improved

Afghanistan

Year

RURAL

Unimproved

Percentage urban population

Country, area or territory

URBAN

18 21 24 36 42 55 52 61 74 81 89 93 95 92 87 37 49 60 100 100 100 35 32 30 87 90 93 67 65 64 50 47 47 85 87 89 66 66 68 54 51 54 80 82 84 88 88 89 20 24 29 33 38 45 66 70 75

– 32 47 95 95 95 99 99 98 – – – 100 100 100 67 75 87 – 92 98 – – – 89 93 97 95 96 96 – – – 100 100 100 100 100 100 – 73 86 – – – – – – 46 50 55 – – – 94 94 94

– 14 21 4 4 4 – – – – – – 0 0 0 – – – – – – – – – 2 2 2 3 3 3 – – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 9 11 – – – – – – 25 27 30 – – – 6 6 6

– 43 32 1 1 1 1 0 1 – – – 0 0 0 0 2 12 – 6 0 – – – 9 5 1 2 1 1 – – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 18 3 – – – – – – 19 17 15 – – – 0 0 0

– 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 – – – 0 0 0 33 23 1 – 2 2 – – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 – – – – – – 10 6 0 – – – 0 0 0

– 21 23 71 76 86 77 82 88 – – – 100 100 100 7 11 20 NA NA NA – – – 68 83 99 – 77 81 – – – 100 100 100 100 100 100 – 50 78 – – – – – – 30 43 58 – – – 98 97 95

– 7 8 8 8 9 – – – – – – 0 0 0 – – – NA NA NA – – – 1 1 1 – 3 3 – – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 2 3 – – – – – – 15 21 28 – – – 2 2 2

– 40 49 20 15 4 8 4 2 – – – 0 0 0 21 22 22 NA NA NA – – – 31 16 0 – 20 16 – – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 48 18 – – – – – – 15 13 11 – – – 0 1 3

– 32 20 1 1 1 15 14 10 – – – 0 0 0 72 67 58 NA NA NA – – – 0 0 0 – 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 1 – – – – – – 40 23 3 – – – 0 0 0

– 23 29 79 84 91 89 92 95 61 62 62 100 100 100 29 42 60 – 92 98 75 85 – 86 92 97 – 89 91 99 98 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 – 62 82 – 89 92 99 99 99 33 45 57 82 90 – 95 95 94

– 9 11 6 7 7 – – – 36 36 37 0 0 0 – – – – – – – – – 2 2 2 – 3 3 – – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 6 7 – 4 5 – – – 17 22 28 – – – 4 5 5

– 40 45 14 8 2 3 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 14 12 16 – 6 0 20 13 – 12 6 1 – 8 6 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 32 11 – 6 3 1 1 1 16 14 12 18 9 – 1 0 1

– 28 15 1 1 0 8 6 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 57 46 24 – 2 2 5 2 – 0 0 0 – 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 – 1 0 0 0 0 34 19 3 0 1 – 0 0 0

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF SANITATION FACILITIES (percentage of population)2

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

Country, area or territory estimates1 on sanitation and drinking water

Not on track

Met target

Not on track

Met target

On track

Met target

–

Met target

On track

NA*

Not on track

Met target

On track

Not on track

–

Not on track

NA*

“NA” represents data not applicable. A dash (–) represents data not available at the time of publication. * Shown as NA* for countries with a negative number for declining population over the period 2000–2012. 1

or communication purposes in its report, the JMP displays these proportions as rounded integers, which F together add to 100% for drinking water and sanitation, respectively. For its database on the JMP website (www.wssinfo.org), the JMP uses unrounded estimates to achieve greater accuracy when converting coverage estimates into numbers of people with or without access. Any discrepancies between the published estimates and those derived from the JMP website are due to the published estimates appearing rounded to the nearest integer. imple linear regression is used to estimate the proportion of the population using the following S drinking water sources: piped water on premises; improved drinking water sources; surface water; and sanitation facilities: improved types of sanitation facilities; open defecation.

The remaining population uses unimproved drinking water sources and unimproved sanitation facilities, respectively. 3

lobal MDG target applied to countries, areas or territories. These assessments are preliminary; the G final assessments will be made in 2015 for the final MDG report. Definitions are as follows: if 2012 estimate of improved drinking water or improved sanitation coverage is i) greater than or equal to the 2015 target or the 2012 coverage is greater than or equal to 99.5%: Met target; ii) within 3% of the 2012 coverage-when-on-track: On track; iii) within 3–7% of the 2012 coverage-when-on-track: Progress insufficient; iv) >7% of the 2012 coverage-when-on-track or 2012 coverage ≤1990 coverage: Not on track.

Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus

Surface water

Azerbaijan

Other unimproved

Austria

Other improved

Australia

Piped on premises

Aruba

Total improved

Armenia

Surface water

Argentina

Other unimproved

Antigua and Barbuda

Other improved

Anguilla

Piped on premises

Angola

Total improved

Andorra

Year Surface water

American Samoa

Unimproved

Other unimproved

Algeria

Improved

Other improved

Albania

TOTAL Unimproved

Piped on premises

Afghanistan

Improved

Total improved

Country, area or territory

RURAL Unimproved

– 36 90 100 100 97 100 93 85 – – – 100 100 100 43 52 68 – 93 95 – – – 97 98 99 98 99 100 – – – 100 100 100 100 100 100 88 88 88 – – – – – – 81 83 86 – – – 100 100 100

3 10 28 96 95 91 87 84 80 – – – 100 100 100 16 23 34 – 58 – – – – 74 86 99 95 96 99 – – – – – – 100 100 100 67 72 78 – – – – – – 23 27 32 – – – – 90 96

– 26 62 4 5 6 13 9 5 – – – 0 0 0 27 29 34 – 35 – – – – 23 12 0 3 3 1 – – – – – – 0 0 0 21 16 10 – – – – – – 58 56 54 – – – – 10 4

– 54 7 0 0 3 0 7 15 – – – 0 0 0 44 36 30 – 7 5 – – – 3 2 1 2 1 0 – – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 10 – – – – – – 17 16 14 – – – 0 0 0

– 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 13 12 2 – – – – – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 – – – – – – 2 1 0 – – – 0 0 0

3 18 56 – 94 94 88 84 79 – – – 100 100 100 42 39 34 NA NA NA – – – 69 81 95 – 82 100 – – – 100 100 100 100 100 100 49 59 71 – – – – – – 65 74 84 – – – 99 99 99

0 0 4 – 44 63 48 52 56 – – – 100 100 100 1 1 1 NA NA NA – – – 13 50 94 52 68 93 – – – – – – 100 100 100 17 18 20 – – – – – – 0 0 1 – – – – 34 63

3 18 52 – 50 31 40 32 23 – – – 0 0 0 41 38 33 NA NA NA – – – 56 31 1 – 14 7 – – – – – – 0 0 0 32 41 51 – – – – – – 65 74 83 – – – – 65 36

49 45 33 – 4 6 10 15 20 – – – 0 0 0 28 24 15 NA NA NA – – – 19 12 3 – 18 0 – – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 24 13 – – – – – – 28 22 16 – – – 1 1 1

48 37 11 – 2 0 2 1 1 – – – 0 0 0 30 37 51 NA NA NA – – – 12 7 2 – 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 17 16 – – – – – – 7 4 0 – – – 0 0 0

– 22 64 – 96 96 94 89 84 94 98 100 100 100 100 42 46 54 – 93 95 97 98 98 94 96 99 – 93 100 91 94 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 70 74 80 – 97 98 95 99 100 68 76 85 95 99 100 100 100 100

1 2 10 – 65 78 69 72 74 65 77 92 100 100 100 6 12 21 – 58 – 61 76 – 66 82 99 81 86 97 90 91 94 – – – 100 100 100 44 46 51 – 93 95 39 92 100 5 7 10 94 96 97 – 73 88

– 20 54 – 31 18 25 17 10 29 21 8 0 0 0 36 34 33 – 35 – 36 22 – 28 14 0 – 7 3 1 3 4 – – – 0 0 0 26 28 29 – 4 3 56 7 0 63 69 75 1 3 3 – 27 12

– 47 27 – 3 4 5 11 16 6 2 0 0 0 0 34 29 24 – 7 5 3 2 2 4 3 1 – 7 0 9 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 17 12 – 3 2 5 1 0 26 21 15 5 1 0 0 0 0

– 31 9 – 1 0 1 0 0 – – 0 0 0 0 24 25 22 – – – – – – 2 1 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 8 – – – – – 0 6 3 0 – – 0 0 0 0

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

URBAN Improved

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF DRINKING WATER SOURCES (percentage of population)2

Met target

Not on track

NA*

Not on track

Met target

Not on track

On track

Met target

Progress insufficient

Met target

NA*

“NA” represents data not applicable. A dash (–) represents data not available at the time of publication. * Shown as NA for countries with a declining population over the period 1995–2012.

Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile

96 97 98 47 48 45 34 38 46 100 100 100 16 25 36 56 62 67 39 43 49 42 53 62 74 81 85 38 39 41 66 71 76 66 69 74 14 18 27 6 8 11 16 19 20 40 46 53 77 79 81 44 53 63 100 100 100 37 38 39 21 22 22 83 86 89

100 100 100 77 85 94 14 19 25 – – – – 66 75 41 49 57 98 98 99 61 70 78 79 83 87 – – – – – – 100 100 100 44 47 50 31 36 43 18 43 82 60 61 62 100 100 100 – 61 75 96 96 96 20 29 44 21 26 31 91 95 100

0 0 0 5 6 6 20 28 37 – – – – 19 21 20 24 28 1 1 1 5 6 6 1 1 1 – – – – – – 0 0 0 32 33 36 27 32 37 2 6 11 22 22 23 0 0 0 – – – – – – 13 19 28 12 15 18 – – –

0 0 0 14 7 0 14 13 11 – – – – 10 4 14 11 10 1 1 0 23 18 16 14 13 11 – – – – – – 0 0 0 13 10 5 41 31 18 14 8 0 16 16 14 0 0 0 – 12 8 4 4 4 59 45 24 42 39 37 5 2 0

0 0 0 4 2 0 52 40 27 – – – – 5 0 25 16 5 0 0 0 11 6 0 6 3 1 – – – – – – 0 0 0 11 10 9 1 1 2 66 43 7 2 1 1 0 0 0 – 27 17 – – – 8 7 4 25 20 14 4 3 0

100 100 100 75 81 88 0 3 5 NA NA NA – 25 31 12 18 24 – 93 92 22 32 42 31 39 49 – – – – – – 99 99 100 2 4 7 42 45 48 0 10 25 27 27 27 99 99 99 – 25 47 NA NA NA 12 10 7 4 5 6 53 69 89

0 0 0 7 7 8 1 6 12 NA NA NA – 24 30 3 4 5 – 1 1 6 8 11 1 1 1 – – – – – – – – 0 3 6 10 5 6 6 0 2 6 7 7 7 – – – – – – NA NA NA 5 4 3 1 1 1 – – –

0 0 0 9 6 0 3 4 7 NA NA NA – 39 35 13 16 22 – 5 7 20 17 12 20 26 33 – – – – – – 1 1 0 6 7 8 50 46 43 7 6 3 49 51 54 1 1 1 – 17 13 NA NA NA 37 45 56 2 7 14 41 27 10

0 0 0 9 6 4 96 87 76 NA NA NA – 12 4 72 62 49 – 1 0 52 43 35 48 34 17 – – – – – – 0 0 0 89 83 75 3 3 3 93 82 66 17 15 12 0 0 0 – 58 40 NA NA NA 46 41 34 93 87 79 6 4 1

100 100 100 76 83 91 5 9 14 – – – – 35 47 28 37 46 – 95 95 39 52 64 67 75 81 98 98 98 – – – 99 100 100 8 12 19 42 44 47 3 16 37 40 42 45 100 100 100 – 44 65 96 96 96 15 17 22 8 10 12 85 92 99

0 0 0 6 7 7 7 15 23 – – – – 22 27 12 16 21 – 1 1 5 7 8 1 1 1 – – – – – – – – 0 7 11 17 7 8 10 0 3 7 13 14 15 – – – – – – – – – 8 10 13 3 4 5 – – –

0 0 0 11 6 0 8 7 9 – – – – 32 24 14 13 14 – 3 4 21 18 15 15 15 15 1 1 1 – – – 1 0 0 7 7 7 48 45 40 9 6 2 36 35 34 0 0 0 – 15 9 4 4 4 45 45 42 10 14 18 10 5 1

0 0 0 7 4 2 80 69 54 – – – – 11 2 46 34 19 – 1 0 35 23 13 17 9 3 1 1 1 – – – 0 0 0 78 70 57 3 3 3 88 75 54 11 9 6 0 0 0 – 41 26 – – – 32 28 23 79 72 65 5 3 0

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

Open defecation

Bulgaria

Other unimproved

Brunei Darussalam

Shared

British Virgin Islands

Improved

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Brazil

Open defecation

Botswana

Other unimproved

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Shared

Bolivia (Plurinational State of)

Improved

Bhutan

Open defecation

Bermuda

9 978 10 268 11 060 188 239 324 5 001 6 949 10 051 60 63 65 536 564 742 6 794 8 495 10 496 4 527 3 834 3 834 1 384 1 755 2 004 149 648 174 505 198 656 16 20 24 257 332 412 8 821 8 001 7 278 8 811 11 608 16 460 5 606 6 674 9 850 9 057 12 223 14 865 12 070 15 928 21 700 27 658 30 697 34 838 352 442 494 26 40 57 2 913 3 638 4 525 5 952 8 301 12 448 13 214 15 454 17 465

Other unimproved

Benin

Unimproved

Shared

Belize

Population (x 1000)

TOTAL

Unimproved

Improved

Belgium

Year

RURAL

Unimproved

Percentage urban population

Country, area or territory

URBAN

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF SANITATION FACILITIES (percentage of population)2

Met target

Not on track

–

Not on track

On track

Not on track

–

Met target

NA*

Not on track

Met target

Not on track

Met target

Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile

Surface water

Burundi

Other unimproved

Burkina Faso

Other improved

Bulgaria

Piped on premises

Brunei Darussalam

Total improved

British Virgin Islands

Surface water

Brazil

Other unimproved

Botswana

Other improved

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Piped on premises

Bolivia (Plurinational State of)

Total improved

Bhutan

Year Surface water

Bermuda

Unimproved

Other unimproved

Benin

Improved

Other improved

Belize

TOTAL Unimproved

Piped on premises

Belgium

Improved

Total improved

Country, area or territory

RURAL Unimproved

100 100 100 87 92 98 72 78 85 – – – 99 99 99 91 93 96 99 99 100 100 99 99 96 98 100 – – – – – – 100 100 100 75 85 97 96 94 92 32 57 94 78 85 94 100 100 100 – 84 91 – 93 96 80 84 90 49 60 72 99 99 100

100 100 100 73 80 89 16 23 32 – – – – 82 79 79 87 95 96 95 93 39 64 90 92 94 97 – – – – – – 96 97 98 11 18 27 32 39 48 15 32 67 25 26 28 100 100 100 – 42 61 – 73 87 8 7 4 7 15 25 98 99 100

0 0 0 14 12 9 56 55 53 – – – – 17 20 12 6 1 3 4 7 61 35 9 4 4 3 – – – – – – 4 3 2 64 67 70 64 55 44 17 25 27 53 59 66 0 0 0 – 42 30 – 20 9 72 77 86 42 45 47 1 0 0

0 0 0 12 8 2 19 17 13 – – – 0 0 1 8 6 4 1 1 0 0 1 1 4 2 0 – – – – – – 0 0 0 24 15 3 2 2 3 41 26 4 20 13 5 0 0 0 – 16 9 – 7 4 18 15 10 48 38 28 1 1 0

0 0 0 1 0 0 9 5 2 – – – 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – – – – 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 5 27 17 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 – 0 0 – – – 2 1 0 3 2 0 0 0 0

100 100 100 60 78 100 49 59 69 NA NA NA – 82 97 41 56 72 96 96 99 86 90 93 68 76 85 – – – – – – 100 99 99 39 55 76 67 70 73 20 38 66 34 42 52 99 99 99 – 81 86 NA NA NA 46 50 54 37 41 45 48 68 91

96 99 100 21 44 71 0 2 4 NA NA NA – 45 43 12 33 57 – 74 82 10 24 38 39 51 67 – – – – – – 67 77 94 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 5 2 3 4 – 38 – 0 8 46 NA NA NA 0 0 0 0 0 1 38 63 91

4 1 0 39 34 29 49 57 65 NA NA NA – 37 54 29 23 15 – 22 17 76 66 55 29 25 18 – – – – – – 33 22 5 39 55 76 66 69 72 20 36 61 32 39 48 – 61 – – 73 40 NA NA NA 46 50 54 37 41 44 10 5 0

0 0 0 29 16 0 22 23 25 NA NA NA – 3 1 19 12 5 4 4 1 6 4 3 18 15 12 – – – – – – 0 0 0 51 37 19 23 18 14 43 33 17 44 39 32 1 1 1 – 18 14 NA NA NA 35 37 41 47 49 52 25 13 9

0 0 0 11 6 0 29 18 6 NA NA NA – 15 2 40 32 23 0 0 0 8 6 4 14 9 3 – – – – – – 0 1 1 10 8 5 10 12 13 37 29 17 22 19 16 0 0 0 – 1 0 NA NA NA 19 13 5 16 10 3 27 19 –

100 100 100 73 85 99 57 66 76 – – – – 86 98 69 79 88 97 98 100 92 95 97 88 93 98 – 95 – – – – 100 100 99 44 60 82 69 72 75 22 42 71 51 62 74 100 100 100 – 83 89 – 93 96 59 62 68 40 45 51 90 95 99

100 100 100 45 61 79 5 10 16 – – – – 54 56 49 66 83 – 83 88 22 46 70 78 86 92 – 75 – – – – 86 91 97 2 3 7 3 4 6 2 7 18 11 13 16 – 87 – – 26 55 – 73 87 3 3 2 2 4 6 88 94 99

0 0 0 28 24 20 52 56 60 – – – – 32 42 20 13 5 – 15 12 70 49 27 10 7 6 – 20 – – – – 14 9 2 42 57 75 66 68 69 20 35 53 40 49 58 – 13 – – 57 34 – 20 9 56 59 66 38 41 45 2 1 0

0 0 0 21 12 1 21 21 20 – – – – 3 1 12 8 4 3 2 0 3 2 1 8 5 2 – 5 – – – – 0 0 1 48 34 14 21 17 13 42 31 15 35 27 18 0 0 0 – 16 11 – 7 4 28 29 29 46 46 46 5 2 1

0 0 0 6 3 0 22 13 4 – – – – 11 1 19 13 8 0 0 0 5 3 2 4 2 0 – – – – – – 0 0 0 8 6 4 10 11 12 36 27 14 14 11 8 0 0 0 – 1 0 – – – 13 9 3 14 9 3 5 3 –

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

URBAN Improved

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF DRINKING WATER SOURCES (percentage of population)2

Met target

On track

–

Met target

–

Not on track

NA*

Met target

Not on track

Met target

On track

Met target

On track

Not on track

Met target

Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea

26 36 52 68 72 76 28 28 28 54 59 64 58 65 74 51 59 65 39 44 52 54 56 58 73 76 75 67 69 71 75 74 73 58 59 60 28 29 35 85 85 87 76 77 77 68 67 67 55 62 70 55 60 68 43 43 44 49 59 65 35 39 40 16 18 22

48 61 74 82 83 85 34 42 – – 18 20 – – – 93 94 95 28 30 33 99 99 99 86 90 94 100 100 100 100 100 100 – 65 88 32 31 29 100 100 100 69 71 73 – 80 – 82 84 86 74 79 86 91 95 98 70 75 80 – 92 – 58 54 –

15 20 24 11 12 12 2 2 – – 37 41 – – – 4 4 4 36 39 43 1 1 1 4 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 5 6 27 26 25 0 0 0 5 5 6 – – – 10 11 11 11 12 13 3 3 2 7 8 8 – – – – – –

34 18 2 3 2 1 64 56 – – 42 37 – – – 2 1 1 30 25 18 0 0 0 9 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 30 6 36 39 45 0 0 0 16 17 19 – 2 – 5 2 1 8 5 0 5 1 0 19 15 11 – 8 – 10 8 –

3 1 0 4 3 2 0 0 – – 3 2 – – – 1 1 0 6 6 6 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – 5 4 1 0 0 0 10 7 2 – 18 – 3 3 2 7 4 1 1 1 0 4 2 1 – – – 32 38 –

15 35 56 41 52 66 11 23 – – 6 6 – – – 83 87 92 7 8 10 98 98 98 68 77 88 100 100 100 100 100 100 – 55 73 11 19 33 100 100 100 39 33 22 – 84 – 62 67 74 37 55 76 57 79 94 30 42 53 – 87 – 0 2 4

4 9 14 4 5 6 1 2 – – 9 9 – – – 4 4 4 10 12 15 1 1 1 5 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 2 3 5 8 13 0 0 0 5 4 3 – – – 11 12 14 4 6 8 4 5 6 3 4 5 – – – – – –

72 51 28 12 12 12 88 74 – – 68 65 – – – 9 7 4 27 26 24 0 0 0 22 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 43 24 61 55 41 0 0 0 6 12 21 – 2 – 8 7 4 20 11 1 22 9 0 33 32 32 – 13 – 0 1 0

9 5 2 43 31 16 0 1 – – 17 20 – – – 4 2 0 56 54 51 1 1 1 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – 23 18 13 0 0 0 50 51 54 – 14 – 19 14 8 39 28 15 17 7 0 34 22 10 – – – 100 97 96

24 45 65 69 75 80 18 28 – – 13 15 – 92 97 88 91 94 15 18 22 98 98 98 81 87 93 100 100 100 100 100 100 – 61 82 17 23 31 100 100 100 62 62 61 – 81 – 73 77 82 57 70 83 72 86 96 50 61 70 – 89 – 9 11 –

7 13 19 9 10 10 1 2 – – 25 30 – – – 4 4 4 20 24 29 1 1 1 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 3 5 11 13 17 0 0 0 5 5 5 – – – 11 11 12 8 9 11 4 4 4 5 6 7 – – – – – –

62 38 15 6 4 5 81 69 – – 53 47 – 7 2 6 4 2 29 25 21 1 1 1 12 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 36 13 54 50 43 0 0 0 14 16 20 – 2 – 6 5 2 14 7 1 14 6 0 26 23 19 – 11 – 2 2 –

7 4 1 16 11 5 0 1 – – 9 8 – 1 1 2 1 0 36 33 28 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – 18 14 9 0 0 0 19 17 14 – 17 – 10 7 4 21 14 5 10 4 0 19 10 4 – – – 89 87 –

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

Open defecation

Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Other unimproved

Czech Republic

Shared

Cyprus

Improved

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Cuba

Open defecation

Croatia

Other unimproved

Côte d'Ivoire

Shared

Costa Rica

Improved

Cook Islands

Open defecation

Congo

1 165 429 1 280 429 1 377 065 33 307 39 898 47 704 413 528 718 2 383 3 126 4 337 18 18 21 3 079 3 930 4 805 12 116 16 131 19 840 4 794 4 475 4 307 10 601 11 138 11 271 767 943 1 129 10 326 10 250 10 660 20 194 22 840 24 763 34 911 46 949 65 705 5 140 5 338 5 598 590 723 860 71 70 68 7 245 8 663 10 277 10 124 12 533 15 492 56 337 66 137 80 722 5 344 5 959 6 297 374 518 736 3 273 3 939 6 131

Other unimproved

Comoros

Unimproved

Shared

Colombia

Population (x 1000)

TOTAL

Unimproved

Improved

China

Year

RURAL

Unimproved

Percentage urban population

Country, area or territory

URBAN

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF SANITATION FACILITIES (percentage of population)2

Met target

On track

–

Met target

On track

Not on track

On track

NA*

Met target

Not on track

Met target

Not on track

–

Progress insufficient

Met target

On track

–

Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea

Surface water

Denmark

Other unimproved

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Other improved

Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Piped on premises

Czech Republic

Total improved

Cyprus

Surface water

Cuba

Other unimproved

Croatia

Other improved

Côte d'Ivoire

Piped on premises

Costa Rica

Total improved

Cook Islands

Year Surface water

Congo

Unimproved

Other unimproved

Comoros

Improved

Other improved

Colombia

TOTAL Unimproved

Piped on premises

China

Improved

Total improved

Country, area or territory

RURAL Unimproved

97 98 98 97 97 97 98 93 – 95 95 96 – – – 99 99 100 90 91 92 100 100 100 94 95 96 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 88 85 79 100 100 100 82 89 100 96 96 96 98 91 82 84 88 92 96 98 100 91 93 95 – 66 – 62 70 –

92 93 95 95 95 94 31 45 – – 44 38 – – – 93 97 100 50 57 64 96 96 96 77 80 83 100 100 100 97 97 97 – 81 94 49 38 20 100 100 100 67 73 79 – 78 – 95 85 74 76 83 91 90 95 100 69 77 86 – 10 – 40 42 –

5 5 3 2 2 3 67 48 – – 51 58 – – – 6 2 0 40 34 28 4 4 4 17 15 13 0 0 0 3 3 3 – 19 5 39 47 59 0 0 0 15 16 21 – 18 – 3 6 8 8 5 1 6 3 0 22 16 9 – 56 – 22 28 –

2 1 2 3 3 3 1 6 – 4 4 4 – – – 1 1 0 10 9 7 0 0 0 6 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 13 18 0 0 0 18 11 0 4 4 4 2 9 18 15 12 8 4 2 0 8 7 5 – 26 – 37 30 –

1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 – 1 1 0 – – – 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 – 8 – 1 0 –

56 70 85 69 71 74 83 92 97 – 32 39 – – – 87 89 91 67 67 68 97 97 97 – 77 87 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 97 26 27 29 100 100 100 60 62 65 – 92 – 77 77 77 61 68 75 90 95 99 59 70 81 – 42 – 39 50 –

12 28 45 38 51 66 10 17 – 3 3 2 – – – 73 80 89 5 9 14 – 77 – – 45 58 100 100 100 – 91 – – 72 80 1 1 1 100 100 100 13 11 9 – 49 – 48 49 50 37 53 72 39 66 93 16 33 49 1 1 1 0 0 0

44 42 40 31 20 8 73 75 – – 29 37 – – – 14 9 2 62 58 54 – 20 – – 32 29 0 0 0 – 9 – – 27 17 25 26 28 0 0 0 47 51 56 – 43 – 29 28 27 24 15 3 51 29 6 43 37 32 – 41 – 39 50 –

34 24 13 14 11 7 7 5 3 – 52 36 – – – 5 4 4 17 21 26 2 2 2 – 21 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 43 48 0 0 0 34 32 34 – 8 – 12 15 18 21 16 11 7 4 1 33 24 15 – 5 – 34 37 –

10 6 2 17 18 19 10 3 0 – 16 25 – – – 8 7 5 16 12 6 1 1 1 – 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 33 30 23 0 0 0 6 6 1 – – – 11 8 5 18 16 14 3 1 0 8 6 4 – 53 – 27 13 –

67 80 92 88 90 91 87 92 – – 69 75 100 100 100 93 95 97 76 78 80 98 98 99 – 91 94 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 43 44 46 100 100 100 77 82 92 – 94 – 89 86 81 74 80 86 93 96 99 75 84 90 – 51 – 43 54 –

33 52 71 77 82 87 16 25 – – 27 25 – 70 76 83 90 96 23 30 40 – 87 – – 71 77 100 100 100 – 95 – – 77 89 14 12 8 100 100 100 54 58 63 – 68 – 74 71 67 58 71 85 61 78 96 42 59 73 – 4 – 6 7 –

34 28 21 11 8 4 71 67 – – 42 50 – 30 24 10 5 1 53 48 40 – 11 – – 20 17 0 0 0 – 5 – – 23 9 29 32 38 0 0 0 23 24 29 – 26 – 15 15 14 16 9 1 32 18 3 33 25 17 – 47 – 37 47 –

26 16 7 6 5 4 6 6 – – 24 16 0 0 0 3 2 1 14 15 17 2 2 1 – 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 35 38 0 0 0 21 16 8 – 6 – 6 11 17 18 13 10 5 3 1 21 13 8 – 13 – 34 35 –

7 4 1 6 5 5 7 2 – – 7 9 0 0 0 4 3 2 10 7 3 0 0 0 – 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 24 21 16 0 0 0 2 2 0 – – – 5 3 2 8 7 4 2 1 0 4 3 2 – 36 – 23 11 –

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

URBAN Improved

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF DRINKING WATER SOURCES (percentage of population)2

Met target

On track

–

Met target

On track

Not on track

On track

NA*

On track

Met target

Not on track

Met target

–

Not on track

On track

Met target

–

Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti

71 69 70 13 15 17 42 48 53 79 82 84 74 77 86 75 75 77 56 52 51 69 80 87 38 49 58 55 53 53 73 73 74 36 44 53 59 60 62 80 82 85 33 36 39 99 98 98 91 93 93 41 45 50 28 31 36 28 36 45 30 29 28 29 36 55

96 96 96 19 22 27 85 89 92 100 100 100 100 100 100 – 87 95 – – – – 40 43 – 62 64 97 96 96 100 100 100 13 16 20 100 99 99 100 100 100 – – – – 94 97 – – – 81 85 88 18 24 33 – 27 34 85 86 88 34 33 31

4 4 4 29 34 42 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – – – – – 33 36 – 28 28 3 3 3 0 0 0 46 58 72 0 – – 0 0 0 – – – – – – – – – 9 9 10 23 32 43 – 22 28 8 8 8 39 38 35

0 0 0 12 17 23 10 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 13 5 – – – – 25 19 – 9 8 0 1 1 0 0 0 31 17 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 – – – – 6 3 – – – 5 3 0 54 41 23 – 47 36 6 5 4 14 18 26

0 0 0 40 27 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – – – – – 2 2 – 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 9 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – – – – – – – 5 3 2 5 3 1 – 4 2 1 1 0 13 11 8

93 93 94 0 6 23 37 61 82 100 100 100 100 100 100 – 60 76 – – – – 35 32 – 60 55 96 94 91 100 100 100 4 6 8 93 96 97 100 100 100 – – – – – 90 – – – 49 60 72 5 8 11 – 4 8 72 76 82 13 14 16

6 6 6 0 2 7 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – – – – – 21 19 – 15 14 1 1 1 0 0 0 20 31 44 – – – 0 0 0 – – – – – – – – – 4 5 6 3 6 8 – 2 4 8 8 9 9 10 11

1 1 0 0 7 27 52 32 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 40 24 – – – – 41 45 – 16 27 1 3 6 0 0 0 47 32 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 – – – – – 10 – – – 13 13 12 37 44 55 – 41 45 16 14 9 16 23 35

0 0 0 100 85 43 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – – – – – 3 4 – 9 4 2 2 2 0 0 0 29 31 33 7 4 2 0 0 0 – – – – – – – – – 34 22 10 55 42 26 – 53 43 4 2 0 62 53 38

95 95 95 2 8 24 57 74 87 100 100 100 100 100 100 – 80 90 99 98 97 – 39 41 – 61 60 96 95 93 100 100 100 7 10 14 97 98 99 100 100 100 98 98 98 – – 97 89 89 90 62 71 80 8 13 19 – 12 20 76 79 84 19 21 24

4 4 4 4 7 13 3 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – – – – – 31 34 – 21 22 2 2 2 0 0 0 29 43 59 – – – 0 0 0 – – – – – – 9 9 9 6 7 8 9 14 21 – 9 15 8 8 9 17 20 24

1 1 1 2 9 26 35 20 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 20 10 0 0 2 – 28 23 – 13 16 1 2 4 0 0 0 42 26 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 – – 3 2 2 1 10 8 6 42 43 43 – 43 40 13 11 7 16 21 31

0 0 0 92 76 37 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – 1 2 1 – 2 2 – 5 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 22 21 19 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 – – – 0 0 0 22 14 6 41 30 17 – 36 25 3 2 0 48 38 21

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

Open defecation

Ghana

Other unimproved

Germany

Shared

Georgia

Improved

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Gambia

Open defecation

Gabon

Other unimproved

French Polynesia

Shared

French Guiana

Improved

France

Open defecation

Finland

1 565 1 366 1 291 48 043 66 024 91 729 728 812 875 4 987 5 176 5 408 56 846 59 213 63 937 117 165 243 198 237 274 947 1 226 1 633 917 1 229 1 791 5 460 4 744 4 358 80 487 83 512 82 800 14 629 18 825 25 366 10 161 10 987 11 125 56 56 57 96 102 105 385 425 464 130 155 163 8 890 11 204 15 083 6 020 8 746 11 451 1 017 1 273 1 664 725 744 795 7 110 8 578 10 174

Other unimproved

Fiji

Unimproved

Shared

Ethiopia

Population (x 1000)

TOTAL

Unimproved

Improved

Estonia

Year

RURAL

Unimproved

Percentage urban population

Country, area or territory

URBAN

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF SANITATION FACILITIES (percentage of population)2

On track

NA*

Not on track

Met target

Not on track

NA*

Met target

NA*

Not on track

Met target

Not on track

–

Progress insufficient

On track

Not on track

Progress insufficient

Not on track

Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti

Surface water

Greenland

Other unimproved

Greece

Other improved

Ghana

Piped on premises

Germany

Total improved

Georgia

Surface water

Gambia

Other unimproved

Gabon

Other improved

French Polynesia

Piped on premises

French Guiana

Total improved

France

Year Surface water

Finland

Unimproved

Other unimproved

Fiji

Improved

Other improved

Ethiopia

TOTAL Unimproved

Piped on premises

Estonia

Improved

Total improved

Country, area or territory

RURAL Unimproved

100 100 100 81 87 97 94 97 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 – 89 95 – – – – 94 97 86 90 94 95 97 100 100 100 100 84 88 93 99 100 100 100 100 100 – – – 98 98 99 – – – 91 95 99 86 89 92 45 68 96 93 95 97 87 82 75

93 95 99 10 26 51 92 94 96 96 99 100 100 100 100 – – 89 – – – – 47 68 27 39 52 80 86 97 100 100 100 40 38 34 99 100 100 100 100 100 – – – 98 98 99 – – – 68 83 98 19 26 35 14 13 11 79 78 76 26 20 12

7 5 1 71 61 46 2 3 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 – – 6 – – – – 47 29 59 51 42 15 11 3 0 0 0 44 50 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 – – – 23 12 1 67 63 57 31 55 85 14 17 21 61 62 63

0 0 0 10 7 3 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 11 5 – – – – 3 2 14 10 6 5 3 0 0 0 0 8 8 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 – – – 2 2 1 – – – 7 4 1 7 8 8 55 32 3 6 4 3 8 15 24

0 0 0 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – – – – – 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – – – – – – – 2 1 0 7 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 5 3 1

98 98 98 3 19 42 79 86 92 100 100 100 100 100 100 – 72 75 – – – – 41 63 70 76 84 72 81 97 100 100 100 38 57 81 92 98 99 100 100 100 – – – 100 100 100 – – – 74 81 89 39 51 65 32 43 56 70 83 98 50 49 47

53 65 86 0 0 1 32 36 40 85 92 96 95 99 100 – – 49 – – – – 9 14 1 3 5 21 34 60 97 99 100 2 3 3 82 95 99 100 100 100 – – – 100 100 100 – – – 35 53 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 52 64 2 3 4

45 33 12 3 19 41 47 50 52 15 8 4 5 1 0 – – 26 – – – – 32 49 69 73 79 51 47 37 3 1 0 36 54 78 10 3 0 0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 – – – 39 28 16 39 51 65 32 43 56 28 31 34 48 46 43

2 2 2 42 40 38 17 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 28 25 – – – – 17 7 30 24 16 28 19 3 0 0 0 10 10 9 8 2 1 0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 – – – 8 7 5 8 15 24 63 53 41 24 11 0 28 35 45

0 0 0 55 41 20 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – – – – – 42 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 33 10 – – – 0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 – – – 18 12 6 53 34 11 5 4 3 6 6 2 22 16 8

99 99 99 13 29 52 85 91 96 100 100 100 100 100 100 – 85 90 100 100 100 – 84 92 76 83 90 85 89 99 100 100 100 54 71 87 96 99 100 100 100 100 97 97 97 98 98 99 100 100 100 81 87 94 52 63 75 36 52 74 77 86 98 61 61 62

81 86 95 1 4 10 57 64 70 94 98 99 99 100 100 – – 79 98 98 97 – 39 61 11 20 32 53 61 80 99 100 100 16 18 19 92 98 99 100 100 100 – 88 – 98 98 99 99 98 98 49 66 86 5 8 13 4 5 5 53 59 67 8 9 9

18 13 4 12 25 42 28 27 26 6 2 1 1 0 0 – – 11 2 2 3 – 45 31 65 63 58 32 28 19 1 0 0 38 53 68 4 1 1 0 0 0 – 9 – 0 0 0 1 2 2 32 21 8 47 55 62 32 47 69 24 27 31 53 52 53

1 1 1 38 35 31 13 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 15 10 0 0 0 – 5 3 24 17 10 15 11 1 0 0 0 10 9 8 4 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 7 6 3 8 12 18 60 45 24 19 10 1 22 27 34

0 0 0 49 36 17 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 – 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 20 5 – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 12 7 3 40 25 7 4 3 2 4 4 1 17 12 4

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

URBAN Improved

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF DRINKING WATER SOURCES (percentage of population)2

Not on track

NA*

On track

Met target

On track

Met target

NA*

Met target

NA*

Met target

On track

Met target

On track

Met target

Not on track

Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho

40 45 53 66 65 70 91 92 94 26 28 32 31 42 51 56 64 69 70 68 66 57 59 62 90 91 92 67 67 69 49 52 52 77 79 92 72 80 83 56 56 53 17 20 24 35 43 44 98 98 98 38 35 35 15 22 35 69 68 68 83 86 87 14 20 28

70 77 85 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 54 60 61 66 71 78 84 93 – 84 86 100 100 100 100 100 100 – – – 78 78 78 100 100 100 98 98 98 96 96 97 26 29 31 43 47 51 100 100 100 92 92 92 – 66 90 – 82 – 100 100 100 – 35 37

7 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 18 20 8 9 9 6 7 7 – 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – 20 20 20 0 0 0 2 2 2 3 3 3 40 44 48 9 10 11 – – – 7 7 7 – 3 4 – 13 – – – – – 32 34

14 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 8 12 9 6 16 9 0 – 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 31 24 18 4 10 18 0 0 0 1 1 1 – 8 2 – 5 – 0 0 0 – 22 24

9 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 22 12 19 16 14 0 0 0 – 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 44 33 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 23 4 – 0 – 0 0 0 – 11 5

33 52 74 100 100 100 100 100 100 7 14 25 24 34 46 62 69 82 – 58 82 98 98 98 100 100 100 – – – 81 82 82 100 100 100 95 96 98 97 97 98 24 26 29 20 25 31 100 100 100 91 91 92 – 17 50 – 71 – – 87 – – 21 27

2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 6 8 11 13 15 18 – 6 8 – – – 0 0 0 – – – 14 14 14 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 17 19 2 3 3 – – – 3 3 3 – 1 1 – 3 – – – – – 3 4

16 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 5 21 17 12 23 14 0 – 20 10 2 2 2 0 0 0 – – – 4 3 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 38 38 35 14 15 17 0 0 0 5 6 5 – 9 7 – 26 – – 13 – – 22 24

49 33 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 79 65 49 41 31 2 2 0 – 16 0 – – – 0 0 0 – – – 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 1 0 22 19 17 64 57 49 0 0 0 1 0 0 – 73 42 – 0 – – – – – 54 45

48 63 80 100 100 100 100 100 100 18 25 36 35 47 59 71 79 89 – 75 85 99 99 99 100 100 100 – – – 79 80 80 100 100 100 97 98 98 96 97 97 25 27 30 28 34 40 100 100 100 91 91 92 – 28 65 – 79 – – 98 – – 24 30

4 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 9 7 8 10 9 10 10 – 9 10 – – – 0 0 0 – – – 17 17 17 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 20 22 26 5 6 7 – – – 5 5 5 – 1 2 – 10 – – – – – 9 13

15 12 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 7 18 14 9 19 10 1 – 11 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 – – – 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 36 35 31 10 13 17 0 0 0 4 4 3 – 9 4 – 11 – – 2 – – 21 23

33 20 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 63 48 40 31 22 1 1 0 – 5 0 – – – 0 0 0 – – – 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 19 16 13 57 47 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 62 29 – 0 – – – – – 46 34

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

Open defecation

Japan

Other unimproved

Jamaica

Shared

Italy

Improved

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Israel

Open defecation

Ireland

Other unimproved

Iraq

Shared

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Improved

Indonesia

Open defecation

India

4 904 6 236 7 936 10 385 10 224 9 976 255 281 326 868 891 1 042 262 1 236 687 178 633 208 939 246 864 56 362 65 911 76 424 17 518 23 801 32 778 3 531 3 804 4 576 4 499 6 014 7 644 56 832 56 986 60 885 2 365 2 582 2 769 122 249 125 715 127 250 3 358 4 767 7 009 16 172 14 576 16 271 23 446 31 285 43 178 71 83 101 2 060 1 906 3 250 4 395 4 955 5 474 4 245 5 388 6 646 2 664 2 371 2 060 2 703 3 235 4 647 1 598 1 856 2 052

Other unimproved

Iceland

Unimproved

Shared

Hungary

Population (x 1000)

TOTAL

Unimproved

Improved

Honduras

Year

RURAL

Unimproved

Percentage urban population

Country, area or territory

URBAN

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF SANITATION FACILITIES (percentage of population)2

Met target

NA*

Met target

Not on track

Met target

On track

Met target

–

Not on track

Met target

On track

Not on track

Met target

Progress insufficient

Met target

–

Not on track

Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho

Surface water

Kazakhstan

Other unimproved

Jordan

Other improved

Japan

Piped on premises

Jamaica

Total improved

Italy

Surface water

Israel

Other unimproved

Ireland

Other improved

Iraq

Piped on premises

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Total improved

Indonesia

Year Surface water

India

Unimproved

Other unimproved

Iceland

Improved

Other improved

Hungary

TOTAL Unimproved

Piped on premises

Honduras

Improved

Total improved

Country, area or territory

RURAL Unimproved

92 94 97 98 100 100 100 100 100 89 92 97 90 91 93 99 98 98 95 95 94 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 98 98 97 100 100 100 99 98 97 97 98 99 92 87 82 74 80 87 99 99 99 96 96 97 – 72 84 100 100 100 100 100 100 93 93 93

84 90 97 94 95 95 100 100 100 48 49 51 25 28 32 97 96 94 95 93 84 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 88 90 91 97 98 99 98 96 93 85 87 90 56 50 44 43 54 67 – – – 79 83 87 – 37 60 – 93 – 100 100 100 26 39 66

8 4 0 4 5 5 0 0 0 41 43 46 65 63 61 2 2 4 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 8 6 3 2 1 1 2 4 12 11 9 36 37 38 31 26 20 – – – 17 13 10 – 35 24 – 7 – 0 0 0 67 54 27

7 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 8 3 9 8 7 1 2 2 3 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 0 0 1 2 3 3 2 1 4 9 13 26 20 13 1 1 1 2 3 3 – 23 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 5 – – – – – – 2 1 0 – 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

60 70 82 91 98 100 100 100 100 64 76 91 61 68 76 84 87 92 39 49 69 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 89 89 89 100 100 100 91 91 90 90 88 86 33 43 55 36 43 51 99 99 99 59 69 82 – 38 65 96 96 96 100 100 100 75 76 77

44 59 78 72 86 – 100 100 100 7 10 14 2 5 8 67 74 85 29 37 56 99 99 99 98 99 100 96 100 100 35 41 47 86 91 95 86 83 79 24 25 28 10 11 13 16 13 9 – – – 23 30 36 4 6 – 59 – – 85 – 2 3 4

16 11 4 19 12 – 0 0 0 57 66 77 59 63 68 17 13 7 10 12 13 1 1 1 2 1 0 4 0 0 54 48 42 14 9 5 5 8 11 66 63 58 23 32 42 20 30 42 – – – 36 39 46 – 34 59 – 37 – – 15 – 73 73 73

5 8 11 9 2 0 0 0 0 32 21 8 31 26 20 12 11 8 15 16 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 6 0 0 0 8 8 9 6 9 12 18 17 16 64 57 49 1 1 1 11 7 3 – 29 25 4 4 4 0 0 0 23 23 22

35 22 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 1 8 6 4 4 2 0 46 35 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 6 5 0 0 0 1 1 1 4 3 2 49 40 29 – – – – – – 30 24 15 – 33 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1

73 81 90 96 99 100 100 100 100 70 81 93 70 78 85 92 94 96 78 80 85 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 93 93 93 100 100 100 97 97 96 94 94 93 43 52 62 50 59 67 99 99 99 73 79 88 – 45 72 98 98 98 100 100 100 78 79 81

60 73 88 87 92 – 100 100 100 17 21 26 9 15 21 84 88 92 75 75 74 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 100 100 61 66 70 94 97 98 95 93 91 58 60 61 18 19 20 26 31 35 – – – 44 49 54 – 11 25 – 82 – – 98 – 6 10 22

13 8 2 9 7 – 0 0 0 53 60 67 61 63 64 8 6 4 3 5 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 32 27 23 6 3 2 2 4 5 36 34 32 25 33 42 24 28 32 – – – 29 30 34 – 34 47 – 16 – – 2 – 72 69 59

6 7 7 4 1 0 0 0 0 27 17 6 24 18 13 6 5 4 7 8 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 5 0 0 0 3 3 4 4 4 6 16 15 15 50 41 33 1 1 1 7 5 3 – 28 21 2 2 2 0 0 0 20 20 18

21 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 6 4 2 2 1 0 15 12 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 41 33 23 – – – – – – 20 16 9 – 27 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

URBAN Improved

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF DRINKING WATER SOURCES (percentage of population)2

Met target

NA*

Met target

On track

Met target

Not on track

Met target

Not on track

Progress insufficient

Not on track

Met target

Not on track

NA*

Met target

Progress insufficient

Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia (Federated States of) Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique

41 44 49 76 76 78 68 67 67 81 84 86 24 27 33 12 15 16 50 62 73 26 28 42 23 28 36 90 92 95 65 68 72 86 90 89 40 40 42 44 43 42 71 75 78 26 22 23 100 100 100 57 57 69 48 59 63 13 11 14 48 53 57 21 29 31

– 26 28 97 97 97 93 95 99 100 100 100 14 17 19 27 25 22 88 94 96 98 98 97 33 34 35 100 100 100 77 80 84 – 94 94 29 38 51 91 91 92 78 82 87 49 64 85 100 100 100 65 65 65 – 92 92 – – – 81 82 85 34 37 44

– 26 29 – – – – – – 0 0 0 22 26 30 22 20 18 4 4 4 2 2 2 36 37 38 0 0 0 11 12 12 – – – 10 14 18 8 8 8 10 10 11 – – – 0 0 0 32 32 32 – 3 3 – – – 14 14 15 6 7 8

– 27 17 3 3 3 7 5 1 0 0 0 41 36 32 47 52 58 7 1 0 0 0 1 26 25 23 0 0 0 10 6 2 – 6 6 38 28 16 1 1 0 2 3 2 46 31 10 0 0 0 2 2 2 – 5 5 – – – 0 2 0 29 31 36

– 21 26 – – – – – – 0 0 0 23 21 19 4 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 4 4 0 0 0 2 2 2 – – – 23 20 15 0 0 0 10 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 1 1 1 – 0 0 – – – 5 2 0 31 25 12

– 4 6 96 96 96 67 75 85 100 100 100 6 8 11 7 8 8 81 90 95 58 72 100 10 12 15 100 100 100 41 48 56 – – 73 8 9 9 87 88 90 35 55 79 9 25 49 NA NA NA – 26 35 – 87 87 – – – 26 43 63 2 5 11

– 12 19 – – – – – – 0 0 0 8 12 16 4 4 4 3 4 4 1 1 0 6 7 9 0 0 0 9 11 12 – – – 3 4 4 9 9 9 5 7 10 – – – NA NA NA – 18 25 – 3 3 – – – 3 5 7 0 1 2

– 16 8 4 4 4 33 25 15 0 0 0 23 24 25 56 66 80 7 2 0 10 8 0 47 53 58 0 0 0 29 20 11 – – 27 20 15 11 4 3 1 9 9 8 80 64 40 NA NA NA – 21 8 – 10 10 – – – 2 2 1 22 26 35

– 68 67 – – – – – – 0 0 0 63 56 48 33 22 8 9 4 1 31 19 0 37 28 18 0 0 0 21 21 21 – – – 69 72 76 0 0 0 51 29 3 11 11 11 NA NA NA – 35 32 – 0 0 – – – 69 50 29 76 68 52

– 14 17 97 97 97 84 89 94 100 100 100 8 11 14 10 10 10 84 92 96 68 79 99 15 18 22 100 100 100 65 70 76 – – 92 16 21 27 89 89 91 66 75 85 19 34 57 100 100 100 – 49 56 – 90 90 70 80 – 52 64 75 8 14 21

– 18 23 – – – – – – 0 0 0 12 16 21 6 6 6 4 4 4 1 2 1 13 16 19 0 0 0 10 11 12 – – – 6 8 10 8 8 9 8 10 11 – – – 0 0 0 – 26 30 – 3 3 8 9 – 8 10 11 2 3 4

– 21 13 3 3 3 16 11 6 0 0 0 26 26 26 55 65 77 7 2 0 8 5 0 43 45 46 0 0 0 17 11 5 – – 8 27 20 12 3 3 0 4 4 3 72 56 33 0 0 0 – 9 3 – 7 7 10 7 – 2 2 1 24 28 35

– 47 47 – – – – – – 0 0 0 54 47 39 29 19 7 5 2 0 23 14 0 29 21 13 0 0 0 8 8 7 – – – 51 51 51 0 0 0 22 11 1 9 10 10 0 0 0 – 16 11 – 0 0 12 4 – 38 24 13 66 55 40

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

Open defecation

Martinique

Other unimproved

Marshall Islands

Shared

Malta

Improved

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Mali

Open defecation

Maldives

Other unimproved

Malaysia

Shared

Malawi

Improved

Madagascar

Open defecation

Luxembourg

2 103 2 892 4 190 4 260 5 176 6 155 3 697 3 498 3 028 382 436 524 11 546 15 745 22 294 9 447 11 321 15 906 18 211 23 421 29 240 216 273 338 7 964 10 261 14 854 375 408 428 47 52 56 358 384 403 2 024 2 708 3 796 1 056 1 185 1 240 86 077 103 874 120 847 96 107 103 31 35 35 2 184 2 397 2 796 615 611 621 11 5 6 24 675 28 710 32 521 13 568 18 276 25 203

Other unimproved

Lithuania

Unimproved

Shared

Libya

Population (x 1000)

TOTAL

Unimproved

Improved

Liberia

Year

RURAL

Unimproved

Percentage urban population

Country, area or territory

URBAN

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF SANITATION FACILITIES (percentage of population)2

Not on track

On track

Met target

NA*

Met target

Not on track

Met target

Not on track

Met target

Progress insufficient

–

Not on track

Progress insufficient

Met target

On track

Met target

Not on track

–

On track

Not on track

Mexico Micronesia (Federated States of) Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique

Surface water

Mauritius

Other unimproved

Mauritania

Other improved

Martinique

Piped on premises

Marshall Islands

Total improved

Malta

Surface water

Mali

Other unimproved

Maldives

Other improved

Malaysia

Piped on premises

Malawi

Total improved

Madagascar

Year Surface water

Luxembourg

Unimproved

Other unimproved

Lithuania

Improved

Other improved

Libya

TOTAL Unimproved

Piped on premises

Liberia

Improved

Total improved

Country, area or territory

RURAL Unimproved

– 76 87 54 54 – 94 97 99 100 100 100 73 75 78 92 93 95 94 99 100 100 100 100 53 70 91 100 100 100 91 92 93 – 86 100 36 45 52 100 100 100 92 94 96 94 94 95 100 100 100 90 91 95 100 100 100 – – – 94 96 98 72 75 80

5 5 6 – – – 89 93 99 100 100 100 23 19 15 37 35 33 86 95 99 50 67 99 17 26 36 100 100 100 4 4 4 – 86 100 15 26 35 99 100 100 86 90 95 – – 42 100 100 100 44 39 33 98 98 98 – – – 75 82 90 20 21 25

– 71 81 – – – 5 4 0 0 0 0 50 56 63 55 58 62 8 4 1 50 33 1 36 44 55 0 0 0 87 88 89 – 0 0 21 19 17 1 0 0 6 4 1 – – 53 0 0 0 46 52 62 2 2 2 – – – 19 14 8 52 54 55

– 23 12 46 46 – 6 3 1 0 0 0 15 13 11 5 5 5 6 1 0 0 0 0 45 29 9 0 0 0 9 8 7 – 14 0 63 54 48 0 0 0 4 4 4 3 3 2 0 0 0 5 6 5 0 0 0 – – – 6 4 2 24 21 16

– 1 1 – – – – – – 0 0 0 12 12 11 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 – – – – 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 3 3 3 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 4 4 4

– 50 63 55 55 – 72 80 89 100 100 100 15 24 35 36 57 83 82 93 99 91 93 98 20 36 54 98 100 100 94 96 98 100 100 100 26 37 48 99 99 100 59 73 91 90 89 87 NA NA NA 26 38 61 95 95 95 – – – 53 58 64 23 27 35

1 1 1 – – – 45 60 78 98 98 98 1 2 2 1 2 3 59 80 – 0 0 1 0 1 1 98 100 100 0 0 0 – – – 0 8 14 98 98 100 49 62 77 – – 36 NA NA NA 2 2 2 – 77 77 – – – 4 12 22 1 1 1

– 49 62 – – – 27 20 11 2 2 2 14 22 33 35 55 80 23 13 – 91 93 97 20 35 53 0 0 0 94 96 98 – – – 26 29 34 1 1 0 10 11 14 – – 51 NA NA NA 24 36 59 – 18 18 – – – 49 46 42 22 26 34

– 26 13 45 45 – 28 20 11 0 0 0 35 31 27 45 31 14 16 5 0 9 7 2 70 57 44 2 0 0 6 4 2 0 0 0 65 56 46 1 1 0 6 9 9 2 3 5 NA NA NA 20 19 20 5 5 5 – – – 42 37 30 45 47 50

– 24 24 – – – – – – 0 0 0 50 45 38 19 12 3 2 2 1 – – – 10 7 2 0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 9 7 6 0 0 0 35 18 0 8 8 8 NA NA NA 54 43 19 0 0 0 – – – 5 5 6 32 26 15

– 61 75 54 54 – 87 91 96 100 100 100 29 38 50 42 62 85 88 96 100 93 95 99 28 45 67 100 100 100 92 93 95 – 88 100 30 40 50 99 99 100 82 89 95 91 90 89 100 100 100 62 68 85 97 98 98 97 99 99 73 78 84 34 41 49

2 3 4 – – – 74 82 92 100 100 100 7 7 7 6 7 8 73 89 – 13 19 43 4 8 14 100 100 100 3 3 3 – – – 6 15 23 99 99 100 75 83 91 – – 37 100 100 100 26 23 24 – 90 91 91 95 96 38 49 61 5 7 8

– 58 71 – – – 13 9 4 0 0 0 22 31 43 36 55 77 15 7 – 80 76 56 24 37 53 0 0 0 89 90 92 – – – 24 25 27 0 0 0 7 6 4 – – 52 0 0 0 36 45 61 – 8 7 6 4 3 35 29 23 29 34 41

– 25 12 46 46 – 13 9 4 0 0 0 30 26 21 41 28 12 11 3 0 7 5 1 63 50 32 0 0 0 8 7 5 – 12 0 64 55 47 1 1 0 5 5 5 2 3 4 0 0 0 12 12 9 3 2 2 3 1 1 24 19 14 40 39 40

– 14 13 – – – – – – 0 0 0 41 36 29 17 10 3 1 1 0 – – – 9 5 1 0 0 0 – – – – 0 0 6 5 3 0 0 0 13 6 0 7 7 7 0 0 0 26 20 6 0 0 0 – – – 3 3 2 26 20 11

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

URBAN Improved

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF DRINKING WATER SOURCES (percentage of population)2

On track

–

Met target

NA*

Met target

Not on track

Met target

On track

Met target

Not on track

Met target

Not on track

NA*

Met target

On track

Met target

On track

Not on track

Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland

25 27 33 28 32 39 100 100 100 9 13 17 69 77 84 60 62 62 85 86 86 52 55 58 15 16 18 35 42 50 31 33 38 90 90 92 72 76 80 66 72 74 31 33 37 70 70 85 54 66 76 15 13 13 49 55 62 69 73 78 49 48 49 61 62 61

– 79 84 61 59 56 66 66 66 34 42 51 100 100 100 – – – – – – 59 61 63 22 27 33 36 34 31 – – – – – – 100 100 100 95 96 97 72 72 72 63 89 100 76 78 80 62 60 56 62 79 96 71 76 81 69 74 79 96 96 96

– 12 13 23 22 21 31 31 31 25 31 37 0 0 0 – – – – – – 8 8 9 15 18 21 46 43 40 – – – – – – 0 0 0 – – – 6 6 6 – – – 8 8 9 10 9 9 3 4 4 8 8 9 15 16 17 – – –

– 7 2 5 4 4 2 2 1 8 5 3 0 0 0 – – – – – – 29 27 24 36 33 29 11 13 14 – – – – – – 0 0 0 1 1 0 14 16 18 37 11 0 14 12 10 25 27 31 34 16 0 6 7 9 8 4 1 4 4 4

– 2 1 11 15 19 1 1 2 33 22 9 0 0 0 – – – – – – 4 4 4 27 22 17 7 10 15 – – – – – – 0 0 0 4 3 3 8 6 4 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 4 4 1 1 0 15 9 1 8 6 3 – – –

– 54 74 10 13 17 NA NA NA 3 17 34 100 100 100 – – – 88 – – 26 32 37 2 3 4 37 32 25 – – – – – – 100 100 100 55 71 95 7 20 34 8 63 100 41 46 52 13 13 13 14 33 53 16 29 45 45 57 69 – 80 –

– 10 14 2 3 4 NA NA NA 1 6 13 0 0 0 – – – – – – 4 5 6 1 1 2 18 16 12 – – – – – – 0 0 0 – – – 1 4 6 – – – 4 4 5 3 3 3 0 0 1 1 3 4 10 13 16 – – –

– 20 5 6 6 6 NA NA NA 5 6 6 0 0 0 – – – 12 – – 25 32 37 2 4 5 12 19 32 – – – – – – 0 0 0 8 4 0 20 23 26 92 37 0 32 32 30 66 68 71 82 65 45 9 17 28 22 12 3 – 20 –

– 16 7 82 78 73 NA NA NA 91 71 47 0 0 0 – – – – – – 45 31 20 95 92 89 33 33 31 – – – – – – 0 0 0 37 25 5 72 53 34 0 0 0 23 18 13 18 16 13 4 2 1 74 51 23 23 18 12 – – –

– 61 77 24 28 32 66 66 66 6 21 37 100 100 100 100 100 100 – – – 43 48 52 5 7 9 37 32 28 – 79 100 69 74 80 100 100 100 82 89 97 27 37 48 46 81 100 60 67 73 20 19 19 37 58 80 54 63 73 57 66 74 – 89 –

– 10 13 8 9 10 31 31 31 3 10 17 0 0 0 – – – – – – 6 7 7 3 4 5 28 27 26 – – – 16 18 19 0 0 0 – – – 3 4 6 – – – 6 7 8 4 3 3 2 2 3 6 7 8 12 14 16 – – –

– 17 5 5 5 6 2 2 1 5 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – 27 29 31 7 8 10 11 18 23 – 21 0 15 8 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 18 22 23 54 19 0 23 19 15 60 64 66 59 39 17 7 10 13 15 8 2 – 11 –

– 12 5 63 58 52 1 1 2 86 64 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – 24 16 10 85 81 76 24 23 23 – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 9 3 52 37 23 0 0 0 11 7 4 16 14 12 2 1 0 33 20 6 16 12 8 – – –

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

Open defecation

Northern Mariana Islands

Other unimproved

Niue

Shared

Nigeria

Improved

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Niger

Open defecation

Nicaragua

Other unimproved

New Zealand

Shared

New Caledonia

Improved

Netherlands

Open defecation

Nepal

42 123 48 453 52 797 1 415 1 898 2 259 9 10 10 18 111 23 184 27 474 14 890 15 860 16 714 169 210 253 3 398 3 858 4 460 4 138 5 101 5 992 7 754 10 990 17 157 95 617 122 877 168 834 2 2 1 44 68 62 4 240 4 492 4 994 1 810 2 193 3 314 111 091 143 832 179 160 15 19 21 2 487 3 055 3 802 4 158 5 379 7 167 4 250 5 350 6 687 21 772 26 000 29 988 61 949 77 652 96 707 38 150 38 351 38 211

Other unimproved

Nauru

Unimproved

Shared

Namibia

Population (x 1000)

TOTAL

Unimproved

Improved

Myanmar

Year

RURAL

Unimproved

Percentage urban population

Country, area or territory

URBAN

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF SANITATION FACILITIES (percentage of population)2

Met target

Not on track

Met target

–

Not on track

Met target

NA*

Progress insufficient

NA*

Met target

Not on track

Met target

Progress insufficient

Not on track

Met target

On track

–

Pakistan Palau Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland

Surface water

Oman

Other unimproved

Norway

Other improved

Northern Mariana Islands

Piped on premises

Niue

Total improved

Nigeria

Surface water

Niger

Other unimproved

Nicaragua

Other improved

New Zealand

Piped on premises

New Caledonia

Total improved

Netherlands

Year Surface water

Nepal

Unimproved

Other unimproved

Nauru

Improved

Other improved

Namibia

TOTAL Unimproved

Piped on premises

Myanmar

Improved

Total improved

Country, area or territory

RURAL Unimproved

80 85 95 99 99 98 – 93 96 97 94 90 100 100 100 – – – 100 100 100 92 95 98 61 78 99 78 78 79 – – – – – – 100 100 100 83 87 95 95 96 96 98 97 97 98 98 97 87 88 88 83 91 100 88 90 91 92 92 92 100 100 100

17 18 19 82 77 71 – – 68 46 47 49 100 100 100 – – – 100 100 100 82 86 89 22 30 39 33 20 6 – – – – – – 100 100 100 30 48 85 56 57 58 98 97 97 96 96 96 61 59 55 61 74 90 73 80 87 40 50 61 97 99 99

63 67 76 17 22 27 – – 28 51 47 41 0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 10 9 9 39 48 60 45 58 73 – – – – – – 0 0 0 53 39 10 39 39 38 0 0 0 2 2 1 26 29 33 22 17 10 15 10 4 52 42 31 3 1 1

8 6 5 1 1 2 – 7 4 2 5 8 0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 7 4 2 38 22 1 16 17 17 – – – – – – 0 0 0 13 9 1 4 4 4 2 3 3 2 2 3 7 7 9 16 9 0 11 9 8 7 7 8 0 0 0

12 9 0 0 0 0 – – – 1 1 2 0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 6 5 4 – – – – – – 0 0 0 4 4 4 1 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 6 5 3 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

48 60 81 55 70 87 NA NA NA 63 74 88 100 100 100 – – – 100 100 100 54 62 68 30 35 42 28 38 49 – – – – – – 100 100 100 70 75 86 81 85 89 72 80 – 67 76 87 24 27 33 24 51 83 44 56 72 75 83 91 – – –

1 2 3 13 22 33 NA NA NA 2 8 16 100 100 100 – – – 100 100 100 17 24 29 0 1 1 3 2 1 – – – – – – 100 100 100 3 15 39 8 15 23 72 80 – 62 71 81 4 3 3 0 23 57 11 34 63 9 17 26 73 89 96

47 58 78 42 48 54 NA NA NA 61 66 72 0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 37 38 39 30 34 41 25 36 48 – – – – – – 0 0 0 67 60 47 73 70 66 0 0 – 5 5 6 20 24 30 24 28 26 33 22 9 66 66 65 – – –

20 16 14 34 16 0 NA NA NA 30 21 9 0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 30 27 25 67 62 54 23 26 30 – – – – – – 0 0 0 20 15 14 8 7 7 28 20 – 21 14 5 27 24 19 64 42 15 29 22 12 22 15 8 – – –

32 24 5 11 14 13 NA NA NA 7 5 3 0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 16 11 7 3 3 4 49 36 21 – – – – – – 0 0 0 10 10 – 11 8 4 – – – 12 10 8 49 49 48 12 7 2 27 22 16 3 2 1 – – –

56 67 86 67 79 92 – 93 96 66 77 88 100 100 100 – 94 98 100 100 100 74 80 85 34 42 52 46 55 64 99 99 99 94 96 98 100 100 100 79 84 93 85 88 91 90 92 – 84 90 94 34 35 40 53 73 94 74 81 87 84 88 92 – – –

5 6 8 32 40 47 – – 68 6 13 21 100 100 100 – 85 94 100 100 100 51 58 64 4 5 8 14 10 4 98 98 98 71 77 84 100 100 100 21 39 73 23 29 36 90 92 – 80 87 92 12 11 9 30 51 78 54 67 82 24 33 43 88 95 98

51 61 78 35 39 45 – – 28 60 64 67 0 0 0 – 9 4 0 0 0 23 22 21 30 37 44 32 45 60 1 1 1 23 19 14 0 0 0 58 45 20 62 59 55 0 0 – 4 3 2 22 24 31 23 22 16 20 14 5 60 55 49 – – –

17 13 11 25 11 0 – 7 4 27 18 9 0 0 0 – 6 2 0 0 0 18 15 12 64 55 45 20 22 23 1 1 1 6 4 2 0 0 0 15 10 7 7 7 6 10 8 – 10 6 4 23 22 18 40 24 5 17 12 9 14 11 7 – – –

27 20 3 8 10 8 – – – 7 5 3 0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 8 5 3 2 3 3 34 23 13 – – – – – – 0 0 0 6 6 – 8 5 3 – – – 6 4 2 43 43 42 7 3 1 9 7 4 2 1 1 – – –

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

URBAN Improved

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF DRINKING WATER SOURCES (percentage of population)2

Met target

–

Met target

–

Met target

On track

Not on track

NA*

Met target

NA*

Met target

On track

–

Met target

Not on track

Met target

On track

Met target

–

Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia

48 54 62 72 95 99 93 96 99 74 80 83 47 45 48 81 90 94 53 53 53 73 73 74 5 14 19 35 33 32 29 28 17 41 45 50 21 22 20 90 93 94 44 53 63 77 80 83 39 40 43 50 53 57 49 50 54 33 36 40 100 100 100 56 56 55

98 99 100 – – – 100 100 100 100 100 100 – 87 89 98 98 98 88 88 – 80 77 74 64 63 61 – – – 67 69 – – – – 94 94 93 – – – – 27 41 – – – 58 62 67 97 97 99 – – – 23 23 22 99 100 100 100 100 100

– – 0 – – – – – – – – – – 7 7 – – – 3 3 – 16 15 15 23 22 22 – – – 3 3 – – – – 5 5 5 – – – – 4 6 – – – 20 22 24 2 2 1 – – – 43 42 42 – – – 0 0 0

2 1 0 – – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 6 4 2 2 2 9 9 – 3 7 10 11 13 15 – – – 24 20 – – – – 1 1 2 – – – – 4 5 – – – 13 11 8 1 1 0 – – – 34 31 26 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 – – – – – – 1 1 1 2 2 2 – – – 6 8 – – – – 0 0 0 – – – – 65 48 – – – 9 5 1 0 0 0 – – – 0 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0

90 96 100 – – – 100 100 100 100 100 100 – 72 84 95 95 95 52 54 – 58 59 59 28 45 64 – – – 54 60 – – – – 92 92 91 – – – – 14 23 – – – 21 30 40 95 95 96 – – – 5 6 7 NA NA NA 100 100 100

– – 0 – – – – – – – – – – 4 5 – – – 1 1 – 11 11 11 3 5 7 – – – 4 4 – – – – 6 6 6 – – – – 4 7 – – – 5 8 11 2 2 2 – – – 14 16 19 NA NA NA 0 0 0

10 4 0 – – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 24 11 5 5 5 47 45 – 30 29 29 62 45 26 – – – 31 26 – – – – 2 2 3 – – – – 4 4 – – – 19 19 20 3 3 2 – – – 55 46 35 NA NA NA 0 0 0

0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 – – – – – – 1 1 1 7 5 3 – – – 11 10 – – – – 0 0 0 – – – – 78 66 – – – 55 43 29 0 0 0 – – – 26 32 39 NA NA NA 0 0 0

94 98 100 99 99 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 – 79 87 98 98 98 71 72 – 74 72 70 30 47 64 – 87 – 58 62 – 63 73 – 93 92 92 – – – – 21 34 92 97 100 35 43 52 96 96 97 97 97 97 11 12 13 99 100 100 100 100 100

– – 0 – – – – – – – – – – 6 6 – – – 2 2 – 15 14 14 4 7 10 – – – 3 4 – – – – 6 6 6 – – – – 4 6 – – – 11 13 16 2 2 1 – – – 23 26 28 – – – 0 0 0

6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 15 7 2 2 2 27 26 – 10 13 15 59 41 23 – 10 – 29 25 – 33 23 – 1 2 2 – – – – 4 6 0 0 0 17 16 15 2 2 2 2 2 2 48 40 31 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 – – – – – – 1 1 1 7 5 3 – 3 – 10 9 – 4 4 – 0 0 0 – – – – 71 54 8 3 0 37 28 17 0 0 0 1 1 1 18 22 28 0 0 0 0 0 0

Met target

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

Open defecation

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Other unimproved

Saint Lucia

Shared

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Improved

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Rwanda

Open defecation

Russian Federation

Other unimproved

Romania

Shared

Réunion

Improved

Republic of Moldova

Open defecation

Republic of Korea

9 899 10 306 10 604 3 518 3 797 3 694 477 594 2 051 42 972 45 977 49 003 4 364 4 107 3 514 611 736 865 23 372 22 388 21 755 148 149 146 763 143 170 7 215 8 396 11 458 41 46 54 138 157 181 108 108 109 163 175 189 24 27 32 117 139 188 16 206 20 145 28 288 7 514 9 862 13 726 9 735 10 272 9 553 69 80 92 4 043 4 140 5 979 3 016 3 918 5 303 5 278 5 388 5 446

Other unimproved

Qatar

Unimproved

Shared

Puerto Rico

Population (x 1000)

TOTAL

Unimproved

Improved

Portugal

Year

RURAL

Unimproved

Percentage urban population

Country, area or territory

URBAN

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF SANITATION FACILITIES (percentage of population)2

Not on track

NA*

Met target

On track

NA*

On track

–

Not on track

NA*

On track

–

Not on track

–

Not on track

Met target

Not on track

On track

NA*

Not on track

Met target

Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia

Surface water

San Marino

Other unimproved

Samoa

Other improved

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Piped on premises

Saint Lucia

Total improved

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Surface water

Rwanda

Other unimproved

Russian Federation

Other improved

Romania

Piped on premises

Réunion

Total improved

Republic of Moldova

Year Surface water

Republic of Korea

Unimproved

Other unimproved

Qatar

Improved

Other improved

Puerto Rico

TOTAL Unimproved

Piped on premises

Portugal

Improved

Total improved

Country, area or territory

RURAL Unimproved

98 99 100 – – – 100 100 100 97 98 100 98 99 99 99 99 99 93 97 99 98 98 99 90 86 81 – – – 96 97 99 – – – 97 97 97 – – – – 86 99 – – – 89 90 92 100 100 99 – – – 66 76 87 100 100 100 100 100 100

96 98 100 – – – – – – 96 97 99 – 77 87 99 99 99 88 90 92 88 90 91 28 23 18 – – – 81 85 89 – – – 82 87 91 – – – – 30 39 – – – 46 60 77 97 97 97 – – – 16 14 11 100 100 100 100 96 –

2 1 0 – – – – – – 1 1 1 – 22 12 0 0 0 5 7 7 10 8 8 62 63 63 – – – 15 12 10 – – – 15 10 6 – – – – 56 60 – – – 43 30 15 3 3 2 – – – 50 62 76 0 0 0 0 4 –

2 1 0 – – – 0 0 0 3 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 7 3 1 2 2 1 3 7 12 – – – 4 3 1 – – – 3 3 2 – – – – 4 1 – – – 11 10 8 0 0 1 – – – 28 17 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – – – – 0 0 0 7 7 7 – – – – – – – – – 0 0 1 – – – – 10 0 – – – 0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – 6 7 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

95 97 100 – – – 100 100 100 – 75 88 – 89 94 98 98 98 55 70 – 80 86 92 59 63 68 – – – 92 93 93 – – – 87 92 99 – – – – 70 94 – – – 42 50 60 99 99 99 – – – 22 31 42 NA NA NA 100 100 100

83 92 100 – – – – – – – 46 64 0 1 25 98 98 98 13 21 28 37 46 55 0 0 1 – – – 65 72 81 – – – 72 78 84 – – – – 14 22 – – – 0 10 23 – 72 72 – – – 1 1 1 NA NA NA 89 92 –

12 5 0 – – – – – – – 29 24 – 88 69 0 0 0 42 49 – 43 40 37 59 63 67 – – – 27 21 12 – – – 15 14 15 – – – – 56 72 – – – 42 40 37 – 27 27 – – – 21 30 41 NA NA NA 11 8 –

5 3 0 – – – 0 0 0 – 25 12 – 11 6 2 2 2 45 30 – 19 12 5 15 17 19 – – – 8 7 7 – – – 13 8 0 – – – – 7 2 – – – 56 48 39 1 1 1 – – – 29 24 17 NA NA NA 0 0 0

0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 – – – – 0 0 – – – – – – 1 2 3 26 20 13 – – – – – – – – – 0 0 1 – – – – 23 4 – – – 2 2 1 0 0 0 – – – 49 45 41 NA NA NA 0 0 0

96 98 100 94 94 – 100 100 100 – 93 98 – 93 97 99 99 99 75 84 – 93 95 97 60 66 71 98 98 98 93 94 94 88 93 95 89 93 99 – – – – 78 97 92 95 97 60 66 74 99 100 99 96 96 96 37 47 60 100 100 100 100 100 100

89 95 100 87 87 – – – – – 87 93 – 35 55 99 99 99 53 57 62 74 78 82 1 3 4 – 92 – 70 76 82 52 74 – 74 80 85 – – – – 23 33 58 63 – 18 30 46 – 85 86 – – 92 6 6 5 100 100 100 95 94 –

7 3 0 7 7 – – – – – 6 5 – 58 42 0 0 0 22 27 – 19 17 15 59 63 67 – 6 – 23 18 12 36 19 – 15 13 14 – – – – 55 64 34 32 – 42 36 28 – 15 13 – – 4 31 41 55 0 0 0 5 6 –

4 2 0 6 6 – 0 0 0 – 7 2 – 7 3 1 1 1 25 16 – 7 4 2 15 16 18 2 2 2 7 6 6 12 7 5 11 7 0 – – – – 6 1 8 5 3 39 33 25 1 0 1 0 0 0 28 21 12 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 – – – – 0 0 – – – – – – 0 1 1 25 18 11 – – – – – – – – – 0 0 1 – – – – 16 2 – – – 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 4 4 35 32 28 0 0 0 0 0 0

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

URBAN Improved

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF DRINKING WATER SOURCES (percentage of population)2

Met target

–

Met target

NA*

On track

–

Met target

NA*

Not on track

On track

Met target

–

Met target

Progress insufficient

Not on track

NA*

Not on track

Progress insufficient

Met target

Syrian Arab Republic Tajikistan Thailand The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia

50 51 50 14 16 21 30 33 38 52 57 62 – – 18 75 76 78 17 16 15 25 29 33 60 65 70 23 23 21 83 84 85 73 73 74 49 52 56 32 26 27 29 31 34 58 59 59 21 24 29 29 33 38 0 0 0 23 23 24 9 11 14 58 63 67

100 100 100 – 81 81 – 45 – 75 78 82 – – 16 100 100 100 78 80 83 52 48 44 99 90 88 63 63 63 100 100 100 100 100 100 95 95 96 92 92 94 87 88 89 93 93 97 – 53 69 26 26 25 NA NA NA 98 99 99 93 92 92 94 96 97

0 0 0 – – – – 26 – 13 13 14 – – 6 0 0 0 13 14 14 12 11 10 – 9 9 29 29 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 5 5 5 11 11 11 3 3 3 – 13 17 44 44 43 NA NA NA – – – 7 7 7 2 2 2

0 0 0 – 10 10 – 16 – 10 7 3 – – 20 0 0 0 5 3 2 28 27 26 1 1 3 6 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 4 4 0 – 10 7 5 8 12 NA NA NA 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 – 9 9 – 13 – 2 2 1 – – 58 0 0 0 4 3 1 8 14 20 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 – 24 7 25 22 20 NA NA NA – – – 0 0 0 3 1 0

100 100 100 – 15 15 – 10 – 40 49 62 – – 7 100 100 100 65 78 94 18 16 13 – 63 61 44 49 56 100 100 100 100 100 100 75 81 95 – 90 95 79 93 96 – 85 83 – 32 27 8 5 2 41 63 93 95 92 89 93 92 92 43 58 77

0 0 0 – – – – 9 – 7 9 12 – – 2 0 0 0 4 5 6 5 5 4 – 11 11 15 16 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 5 – 2 2 3 4 4 – 5 4 – 7 6 15 11 5 – – – – – – 7 7 7 5 7 10

0 0 0 – 19 19 – 9 – 26 21 16 – – 10 0 0 0 16 9 0 29 26 24 – 3 10 10 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 – 6 3 1 0 0 – 10 12 – 6 31 3 10 19 59 37 7 5 8 11 0 1 1 3 6 8

0 0 0 – 66 66 – 72 – 27 21 10 – – 81 0 0 0 15 8 0 48 53 59 – 23 18 31 29 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 10 0 – 2 0 17 3 0 – 0 1 – 55 36 74 74 74 – – – – – – 0 0 0 49 29 5

100 100 100 – 25 29 – 22 – 58 65 74 – – 9 100 100 100 68 79 92 27 25 24 – 81 80 49 52 57 100 100 100 100 100 100 85 89 96 – 90 94 82 91 93 – 90 91 – 37 39 13 12 11 41 63 93 95 94 91 93 92 92 73 82 90

0 0 0 – – – – 15 – 10 11 13 – – 3 0 0 0 6 6 7 7 7 6 – 10 10 18 19 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 – 3 3 6 6 7 – 3 3 – 8 9 24 22 20 – – – – – – 7 7 7 3 4 4

0 0 0 – 18 17 – 10 – 18 14 8 – – 11 0 0 0 12 8 1 28 26 24 – 1 4 8 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 – 6 3 0 1 0 – 7 5 – 7 25 3 9 16 59 37 7 5 6 9 0 1 1 2 3 4

0 0 0 – 57 54 – 53 – 14 10 5 – – 77 0 0 0 14 7 0 38 42 46 – 8 6 25 23 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 5 0 – 1 0 12 2 0 – 0 1 – 48 27 60 57 53 – – – – – – 0 0 0 22 11 2

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

Open defecation

Switzerland

Other unimproved

Sweden

Shared

Swaziland

Improved

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Suriname

Open defecation

Sudan

Other unimproved

Sri Lanka

Shared

Spain

Improved

South Sudan

Open defecation

South Africa

2 004 1 990 2 068 312 412 550 6 322 7 385 10 195 36 793 44 846 52 386 10 838 38 883 40 283 46 755 17 324 18 846 21 098 25 707 34 654 37 195 407 467 535 863 1 064 1 231 8 559 8 872 9 511 6 674 7 166 7 997 12 452 16 371 21 890 5 297 6 186 8 009 56 583 62 343 66 785 2 010 2 052 2 106 751 854 1 114 3 788 4 865 6 643 2 2 1 95 98 105 1 222 1 268 1 337 8 135 9 553 10 875

Other unimproved

Somalia

Unimproved

Shared

Solomon Islands

Population (x 1000)

TOTAL

Unimproved

Improved

Slovenia

Year

RURAL

Unimproved

Percentage urban population

Country, area or territory

URBAN

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF SANITATION FACILITIES (percentage of population)2

Met target

–

On track

–

Met target

Not on track

Met target

–

Not on track

Met target

Not on track

Met target

Thailand The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia

Surface water

Tajikistan

Other unimproved

Syrian Arab Republic

Other improved

Switzerland

Piped on premises

Sweden

Total improved

Swaziland

Surface water

Suriname

Other unimproved

Sudan

Other improved

Sri Lanka

Piped on premises

Spain

Total improved

South Sudan

Year Surface water

South Africa

Unimproved

Other unimproved

Somalia

Improved

Other improved

Solomon Islands

TOTAL Unimproved

Piped on premises

Slovenia

Improved

Total improved

Country, area or territory

RURAL Unimproved

100 100 100 – 93 93 – 38 – 98 98 99 – – 63 100 100 100 92 95 99 86 76 66 98 98 98 86 89 94 100 100 100 100 100 100 97 95 92 – 92 93 96 97 97 100 100 100 – 69 95 79 85 92 NA NA NA 98 98 99 94 96 97 95 97 100

100 100 100 – 61 61 0 12 – 85 87 93 – – – 99 99 99 37 53 67 78 63 46 – 90 77 67 70 75 100 100 100 100 100 100 94 93 91 – 78 82 74 77 80 97 97 94 – 24 47 14 13 12 NA NA NA – – – 80 85 – 89 92 94

0 0 0 – 32 32 – 26 – 13 11 6 – – – 1 1 1 55 42 32 8 13 20 – 8 21 19 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 – 14 11 22 20 17 3 3 6 – 45 48 65 72 80 NA NA NA – – – 14 11 – 6 5 6

0 0 0 – 6 6 – 56 – 2 2 1 – – 16 0 0 0 8 5 1 12 22 31 2 2 2 6 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 8 – 3 2 4 3 3 0 0 0 – 28 4 20 14 7 NA NA NA 2 2 1 3 1 0 5 3 0

0 0 0 – 1 1 – 6 – 0 0 0 – – 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 0 0 8 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 3 1 1 1 1 NA NA NA – – – 3 3 3 0 0 0

99 99 99 – 77 77 – 16 – 63 72 88 – – 55 100 100 100 63 76 93 61 56 50 – 73 88 25 41 69 100 100 100 100 100 100 75 79 87 – 48 64 82 90 95 99 99 99 – 50 61 36 38 41 90 93 97 99 99 99 90 92 – 63 76 90

99 99 99 – 16 16 0 0 0 16 30 57 – – – 100 100 100 6 15 23 16 15 13 – 48 44 4 13 27 100 100 100 99 99 99 49 60 81 – 18 29 10 22 31 – 85 82 – 11 14 0 0 1 – – – – – – 67 71 – 22 33 –

0 0 0 – 61 61 – 16 – 47 42 31 – – – 0 0 0 57 61 70 45 41 37 – 25 44 21 28 42 0 0 0 1 1 1 26 19 6 – 30 35 72 68 64 – 14 17 – 39 47 36 38 40 – – – – – – 23 21 – 41 43 –

1 1 1 – 14 14 – 55 – 8 8 8 – – 14 0 0 0 28 19 5 29 33 36 – 5 1 18 18 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 20 12 – 13 7 16 9 5 1 1 1 – 43 28 37 33 29 10 7 3 1 1 1 8 6 – 35 22 8

0 0 0 – 9 9 – 29 – 29 20 4 – – 31 0 0 0 9 5 2 10 11 14 – 22 11 57 41 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 – 39 29 2 1 0 0 0 0 – 7 11 27 29 30 – – – – – – 2 2 – 2 2 2

100 100 100 – 80 81 – 23 – 81 87 95 – – 57 100 100 100 68 79 94 67 62 55 – 89 95 39 52 74 100 100 100 100 100 100 86 88 90 – 60 72 86 92 96 99 99 99 – 54 70 48 53 61 90 93 97 99 99 99 90 92 – 82 89 97

100 100 100 – 23 26 0 4 – 52 62 79 – – – 99 99 99 11 21 30 32 29 24 – 75 67 18 25 37 100 100 100 100 100 100 71 77 87 – 34 43 29 39 48 – 92 90 – 14 24 4 5 5 – – – – – – 69 73 – 61 71 –

0 0 0 – 57 55 – 19 – 29 25 16 – – – 1 1 1 57 58 64 35 33 31 – 14 28 21 27 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 11 3 – 26 29 57 53 48 – 7 9 – 40 46 44 48 56 – – – – – – 21 19 – 21 18 –

0 0 0 – 13 12 – 56 – 5 4 3 – – 14 0 0 0 25 17 4 25 29 35 – 3 2 16 15 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 12 10 – 10 6 12 7 4 1 1 1 – 40 22 32 27 20 10 7 3 1 1 1 8 6 – 17 10 2

0 0 0 – 7 7 – 21 – 14 9 2 – – 29 0 0 0 7 4 2 8 9 10 – 8 3 45 33 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 30 22 2 1 0 0 0 0 – 6 8 20 20 19 – – – – – – 2 2 – 1 1 1

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

URBAN Improved

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF DRINKING WATER SOURCES (percentage of population)2

Met target

–

Met target

–

Met target

Not on track

-2

Met target

On track

Met target

On track

Not on track

Met target

NA*

Met target

–

Met target

Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

Viet Nam West Bank and Gaza Strip Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

59 65 72 45 46 49 74 85 94 41 46 51 11 12 16 67 67 69 79 80 85 78 79 80 19 22 27 75 79 83 88 93 96 89 91 93 40 37 36 19 22 25 84 90 94 20 24 32 68 72 75 21 26 33 39 35 40 29 34 39

96 96 97 99 99 100 – – – 75 81 86 32 32 33 97 97 96 98 98 98 100 100 100 9 16 25 100 100 100 – – – 93 94 96 95 97 100 – 54 65 89 93 – 64 77 93 90 92 95 70 82 93 61 59 56 54 53 52

1 2 2 – – – – – – 8 9 9 49 50 50 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 8 15 24 0 0 0 – – – 3 3 3 – – – – 28 33 – – – 4 4 5 5 5 5 1 2 2 26 25 24 46 45 44

3 2 1 1 1 0 – – – 15 8 3 17 16 15 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 67 48 0 0 0 – – – 0 1 1 5 3 0 – 18 2 7 2 – 8 8 2 3 2 0 23 12 3 10 14 18 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 – – – 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 0 0 – – – 4 2 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 4 5 – 24 11 0 2 1 0 6 4 2 3 2 2 0 1 2

66 71 75 97 97 98 – – – 71 76 80 25 29 34 – 91 89 95 95 95 100 100 100 6 7 7 99 99 100 – – – 81 86 96 76 87 100 – 38 55 45 54 – 31 47 67 – 85 93 12 24 34 29 31 34 35 34 32

2 3 3 – – – – – – 4 4 5 13 15 17 – 4 4 5 5 5 0 0 0 3 4 4 0 0 0 – – – 2 2 2 – – – – 10 15 – – – 2 3 4 – 7 7 1 2 3 7 7 8 18 17 16

27 23 21 2 2 1 – – – 18 13 8 40 40 40 – 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 76 73 1 1 0 – – – 4 3 2 24 13 0 – 50 28 14 6 – 24 25 26 – 6 0 33 32 32 22 29 33 0 5 12

5 3 1 1 1 1 – – – 7 7 7 22 16 9 – 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 13 16 0 0 0 – – – 13 9 0 0 0 0 – 2 2 41 40 – 43 25 3 – 2 0 54 42 31 42 33 25 47 44 40

84 87 91 98 98 99 – 81 – 73 78 83 26 30 34 – 95 94 97 97 98 100 100 100 7 9 12 100 100 100 96 96 96 92 94 96 84 91 100 – 42 58 82 89 – 37 54 75 – 90 94 24 39 53 41 41 43 41 40 40

2 2 2 – – – – – – 6 6 7 17 19 23 – 3 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 4 6 10 0 0 0 – – – 2 3 3 – – – – 14 20 – – – 2 3 4 – 5 6 1 2 3 14 13 14 26 27 27

12 10 7 1 1 1 – 16 – 16 11 6 37 36 35 – 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 80 74 65 0 0 0 4 4 4 1 1 1 16 9 0 – 42 20 8 3 – 22 21 19 – 4 0 31 27 22 19 24 27 0 3 8

2 1 0 1 1 0 – 3 – 5 5 4 20 15 8 – 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 11 13 0 0 0 – – – 5 2 0 0 0 0 – 2 2 10 8 – 39 22 2 – 1 0 44 32 22 26 22 16 33 30 25

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

Open defecation

Uruguay

Other unimproved

United States Virgin Islands

Shared

United States of America

Improved

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

United Republic of Tanzania

Open defecation

United Kingdom

Other unimproved

United Arab Emirates

Shared

Ukraine

Improved

Uganda

Open defecation

Tuvalu

53 995 63 174 73 997 3 668 4 501 5 173 12 19 40 9 9 10 17 535 24 276 36 346 51 659 49 057 45 530 1 806 3 026 9 206 57 214 58 951 62 783 25 485 34 021 47 783 254 507 284 594 317 505 103 109 106 3 110 3 321 3 395 20 555 24 829 28 541 147 185 247 19 741 24 408 29 955 68 910 80 888 90 796 2 081 3 205 4 219 11 790 17 523 23 852 7 845 10 101 14 075 10 462 12 504 13 724

Other unimproved

Turks and Caicos Islands

Unimproved

Shared

Turkmenistan

Population (x 1000)

TOTAL

Unimproved

Improved

Turkey

Year

RURAL

Unimproved

Percentage urban population

Country, area or territory

URBAN

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF SANITATION FACILITIES (percentage of population)2

On track

Met target

–

On track

Not on track

NA*

On track

Met target

Not on track

Met target

Not on track

NA*

Met target

Progress insufficient

–

Met target

Progress insufficient

Not on track

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

Viet Nam West Bank and Gaza Strip Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Surface water

Vanuatu

Other unimproved

Uzbekistan

Other improved

Uruguay

Piped on premises

United States Virgin Islands

Total improved

United States of America

Surface water

United Republic of Tanzania

Other unimproved

United Kingdom

Other improved

United Arab Emirates

Piped on premises

Ukraine

Total improved

Uganda

Year Surface water

Tuvalu

Unimproved

Other unimproved

Turks and Caicos Islands

Improved

Other improved

Turkmenistan

TOTAL Unimproved

Piped on premises

Turkey

Improved

Total improved

Country, area or territory

RURAL Unimproved

94 97 100 99 97 89 – – – 92 95 98 77 85 95 100 99 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 94 87 78 100 100 99 – – – 98 99 100 97 98 98 94 96 98 93 94 – 90 94 98 100 94 82 96 83 72 89 87 85 100 99 97

91 95 99 – 81 77 – – – 92 95 97 6 14 23 – 92 86 – 80 – 100 100 100 33 29 23 100 99 99 – – – 94 96 100 86 86 85 79 65 51 87 89 – 43 51 61 – 87 75 84 77 71 48 43 36 97 88 79

3 2 1 – 16 12 – – – 0 0 1 71 71 72 – 7 12 – 20 – 0 0 0 61 58 55 0 1 0 – – – 4 3 0 11 12 13 15 31 47 6 5 – 47 43 37 – 7 7 12 6 1 41 44 49 3 11 18

6 3 0 0 2 10 – – – 8 5 2 19 12 4 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 19 0 0 1 – – – 2 1 0 1 1 1 6 4 2 6 5 – 4 3 2 0 5 17 3 16 27 10 12 13 0 1 3

0 0 0 1 1 1 – – – – – – 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 0 0 – – – 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 – 6 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0

73 85 99 – 72 54 – – – 89 93 97 37 53 71 – 92 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 46 45 44 94 96 98 – – – 75 81 95 85 83 81 55 71 88 71 74 – 54 72 94 – 87 82 59 52 47 23 35 49 71 70 69

51 73 97 – 29 15 – – – 89 93 97 0 1 1 – 50 22 – 70 – 98 98 98 0 2 4 91 94 97 – – – 51 66 95 37 32 26 27 22 17 44 50 – 0 4 9 – 64 70 12 20 26 1 1 2 7 6 6

22 12 – – 43 39 – – – 0 0 0 37 52 70 – 42 76 – 30 – 2 2 2 46 43 40 3 2 1 – – – 24 15 0 48 51 55 28 49 71 27 24 – 54 68 85 – 23 12 47 32 21 22 34 47 64 64 63

26 14 – – 8 46 – – – 11 7 3 37 28 17 – 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 32 33 6 4 2 – – – 23 17 5 8 11 14 37 21 4 13 10 – 28 15 4 – 10 15 34 41 47 46 38 29 17 19 22

1 1 0 – 20 – – – – – – – 26 19 12 – 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 23 23 0 0 0 – – – 2 2 0 7 6 5 8 8 8 16 16 – 18 13 2 – 3 3 7 7 6 31 27 22 12 11 9

85 93 100 – 83 71 – 87 – 90 94 98 42 56 75 – 97 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 55 54 53 98 99 99 100 100 100 95 97 99 90 89 87 62 76 91 90 92 – 62 77 95 – 92 82 66 60 55 49 53 63 79 80 80

75 87 99 – 53 45 – 28 – 90 94 97 1 2 5 – 78 66 – 78 – 100 100 100 7 8 9 98 98 99 40 44 49 90 94 99 57 52 47 37 32 25 81 85 – 9 15 26 – 81 74 27 35 40 20 16 15 33 34 34

10 6 – – 30 26 – 59 – 0 0 1 41 54 70 – 19 32 – 22 – 0 0 0 48 46 44 0 1 0 60 56 51 5 3 0 33 37 40 25 44 66 9 7 – 53 62 69 – 11 8 39 25 15 29 37 48 46 46 46

15 7 – – 6 29 – 13 – 10 6 2 35 27 15 – 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 27 30 2 1 1 0 0 0 5 3 1 5 7 10 31 17 3 7 6 – 22 12 4 – 7 17 28 35 41 32 29 23 12 13 15

0 0 0 – 11 – – – – – – – 23 17 10 – 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 19 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 3 7 7 6 3 2 – 16 11 1 – 1 1 6 5 4 19 18 14 9 7 5

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

URBAN Improved

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF DRINKING WATER SOURCES (percentage of population)2

Met target

Not on track

-1

–

Met target

On track

NA*

Met target

Not on track

On track

Met target

NA*

Met target

Not on track

Met target

–

Met target

Not on track

Developing regions Least developed countries

World

Open defecation

Developed regions

Other unimproved

Caucasus and Central Asia

Shared

Latin America and the Caribbean

Improved

Oceania

Open defecation

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Western Asia

Other unimproved

South-eastern Asia

Shared

MDG Regions

Southern Asia without India

Improved

Southern Asia

Open defecation

Eastern Asia without China

510 052 666 970 914 217 119 863 141 601 169 304 1 236 934 1 358 911 1 461 333 71 505 83 251 84 268 1 191 647 1 447 851 1 726 444 322 757 475 782 489 757 443 735 524 410 611 529 126 752 160 608 215 819 6 461 8 092 10 279 445 206 526 279 609 794 66 308 70 984 80 105 1 153 510 1 200 279 1 257 945 4 146 958 4 905 706 5 798 823 509 776 664 146 878 820 5 300 468 6 105 985 7 056 769

Other unimproved

Eastern Asia

Unimproved

Shared

Northern Africa

Population (x 1 000)

TOTAL

Unimproved

Improved

Sub-Saharan Africa

Year

RURAL

Unimproved

Percentage urban population

Region or world

URBAN

28 32 37 49 52 56 29 38 53 71 71 78 27 29 33 29 28 36 32 38 45 61 64 69 24 24 23 70 75 79 48 44 44 72 74 78 35 40 47 21 24 29 43 47 53

41 41 41 92 93 95 53 64 76 83 87 93 55 59 64 68 69 73 69 74 80 94 94 96 75 76 76 80 83 87 96 93 96 97 96 97 64 68 73 38 48 48 76 77 80

29 30 33 6 6 5 15 19 24 – – – 15 16 18 11 12 14 9 10 10 2 4 4 9 10 10 6 6 7 3 5 4 2 2 2 13 15 17 22 23 26 9 11 13

20 19 17 0 0 0 30 16 0 – – – 8 9 9 15 15 11 9 6 3 2 1 0 13 11 11 8 7 5 1 2 0 1 2 1 14 10 6 25 18 20 9 7 4

10 10 9 2 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 22 16 9 6 4 2 13 10 7 2 1 0 3 3 3 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 7 4 15 11 6 6 5 3

18 19 23 54 72 87 16 36 57 62 75 83 12 20 31 25 36 49 37 50 63 59 63 73 22 23 24 37 49 63 86 86 95 90 90 92 21 32 43 14 23 31 28 38 47

8 9 10 4 5 6 4 9 14 4 6 9 3 5 7 8 11 15 5 7 9 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 6 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 7 9 7 9 12 4 6 9

28 29 33 13 5 0 71 50 27 30 15 6 5 7 9 17 18 17 18 15 11 21 20 15 59 57 59 18 18 18 12 11 3 8 8 6 33 24 19 26 25 27 30 23 17

46 43 34 29 18 7 9 5 2 4 4 2 80 68 53 50 35 19 40 28 17 18 14 8 16 17 14 42 29 13 1 1 0 0 0 0 42 37 29 53 43 30 38 33 27

24 26 30 72 83 91 27 47 67 77 84 91 23 31 42 38 47 57 47 59 71 80 83 89 35 36 35 67 75 82 91 89 95 95 95 96 36 47 57 19 28 36 49 56 64

14 16 19 5 6 6 7 13 19 – – – 6 8 11 9 12 15 6 8 10 2 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 7 2 3 3 2 2 2 7 10 13 10 12 16 6 8 11

26 26 26 7 2 0 59 36 13 – – – 6 8 9 15 16 16 15 12 6 10 7 4 48 45 48 11 9 8 6 8 2 3 3 2 26 18 13 26 25 25 21 16 11

36 32 25 16 9 3 7 4 1 2 1 1 65 53 38 38 25 12 32 21 13 8 6 3 13 14 12 17 10 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 31 25 17 45 35 23 24 20 14

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF SANITATION FACILITIES (percentage of population)2

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

Regional and global estimates1 on sanitation and drinking water

Not on track

Met target

Not on track

On track

Not on track

On track

Met target

On track

Not on track

A dash (–) represents data not available at the time of publication. 1

imple linear regression is used to estimate the proportion of the population using the following S drinking water sources: piped water on premises; improved drinking water sources; surface water; and sanitation facilities: improved types of sanitation facilities; open defecation. The remaining population uses unimproved drinking water sources and unimproved sanitation facilities, respectively.

World

Surface water

Least developed countries

Other unimproved

Developing regions

Other improved

Developed regions

Piped on premises

Caucasus and Central Asia

Total improved

Latin America and the Caribbean

Surface water

Oceania

Other unimproved

Western Asia

Other improved

South-eastern Asia

Piped on premises

Southern Asia without India

Total improved

MDG Regions

Southern Asia

Year Surface water

Eastern Asia without China

Unimproved

Other unimproved

Eastern Asia

Improved

Other improved

Northern Africa

TOTAL Unimproved

Piped on premises

Sub-Saharan Africa

Improved

Total improved

Region or world

RURAL Unimproved

83 83 85 94 94 95 97 98 98 97 98 99 90 92 96 93 92 94 90 92 94 95 96 96 92 93 94 94 96 97 96 96 96 99 100 100 93 94 95 79 79 84 95 95 96

42 39 34 86 89 91 92 93 95 93 92 96 51 53 54 60 60 61 41 45 50 85 87 92 74 75 74 87 90 94 83 84 86 97 97 98 71 72 74 29 31 33 81 80 80

41 44 51 8 5 4 5 5 3 4 6 3 39 39 42 33 32 33 49 47 44 10 9 4 18 18 20 7 6 3 13 12 10 2 3 2 22 22 21 50 48 51 14 15 16

13 14 12 6 6 5 2 2 2 3 2 1 9 7 4 6 7 6 8 6 6 4 3 4 5 4 4 5 3 3 3 3 3 1 0 0 6 5 5 16 17 14 4 4 4

4 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 3 3 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 4 2 1 1 0

35 42 53 80 84 89 56 71 85 73 85 91 65 76 89 69 76 85 62 72 85 69 73 79 37 41 45 63 72 82 78 76 78 94 95 98 58 69 80 42 49 60 62 71 82

4 4 6 33 51 74 12 29 45 11 56 70 8 11 15 10 13 18 5 10 13 41 53 66 12 12 11 36 50 66 29 29 29 79 80 83 11 19 25 2 3 4 18 24 29

31 38 47 47 33 15 44 42 40 62 29 21 57 65 74 59 63 67 57 62 72 28 20 13 25 29 34 27 22 16 49 47 49 15 15 15 47 50 55 40 46 56 44 47 53

31 32 29 17 14 10 34 23 13 19 10 6 30 20 10 21 17 12 26 19 12 23 20 18 23 19 15 16 14 12 13 12 13 6 5 2 30 22 15 34 31 28 27 21 13

34 26 18 3 2 1 10 6 2 8 5 3 5 4 1 10 7 3 12 9 3 8 7 3 40 40 40 21 14 6 9 12 9 0 0 0 12 9 5 24 20 12 11 8 5

48 55 64 87 89 92 68 81 92 90 95 98 72 81 91 76 81 88 71 80 89 85 87 91 50 53 56 85 90 94 87 85 86 98 99 99 70 79 87 50 56 67 76 83 89

15 16 16 58 71 83 35 53 72 70 83 90 19 23 28 25 29 34 17 23 30 68 75 84 27 27 25 72 80 88 55 53 54 92 93 95 32 40 48 7 9 12 45 50 56

33 39 48 29 18 9 33 28 20 20 12 8 53 58 63 51 52 54 54 57 59 17 12 7 23 26 31 13 10 6 32 32 32 6 6 4 38 39 39 43 47 55 31 33 33

27 26 24 11 10 7 25 15 7 8 4 1 24 16 8 17 14 10 20 14 9 12 10 8 19 16 12 8 6 5 8 8 9 2 1 1 22 15 10 31 28 24 17 12 9

25 19 12 2 1 1 7 4 1 2 1 1 4 3 1 7 5 2 9 6 2 3 3 1 31 31 32 7 4 1 5 7 5 0 0 0 8 6 3 19 16 9 7 5 2

Proportion of the 2012 population that gained access since 2000 (%)

URBAN Improved

Progress towards MDG target 3

USE OF DRINKING WATER SOURCES (percentage of population)2

Not on track

On track

Met target

On track

Not on track

Met target

Not on track

Met target

Not on track

Met target

ANNEX 4: TRENDS IN URBAN AND RURAL DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION COVERAGE, 1990–2012

Trends in urban and rural drinking water coverage, 1990–2012 4

2 8

0 6

1 9

0 4

3 5

2 4

1 3

0 6

0 5 4

1 4 10

0 4 4

1 5 7

0 3 3

1 2 5

0 2 3

5 16

00 2

1 4

0 4

Southern Asia

Piped on premises

10 2

Southeastern Asia

0 5

1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012

SubSaharan Africa

1 6

Oceania

Caucasus Northern and Central Africa Asia

Other improved

Unimproved

Western Asia

Latin America & Caribbean

Eastern Asia

1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012

1990 2012

Least Developing Developed developed regions regions countries

World

Surface water

PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE

Fig. A4-1. Trends in urban drinking water coverage (%) in MDG regions and the world, 1990–2012

1 10

30 40

40 23

3 17

29 11

Oceania

Piped on premises

Southeastern Asia

Eastern Asia

Unimproved

2 Western Asia

Southern Caucasus Asia and Central Asia

Other improved

1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012

SubSaharan Africa

13 27

47 66

0 2

15 15 28

0 6

47 25

1 10 15

6 21

40 26

Latin Northern America & Africa Caribbean

1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012

1990 2012

Least Developing Developed developed regions regions countries

World

Surface water

Fig. A4-2. Trends in rural drinking water coverage (%) in MDG regions and the world, 1990–2012

Trends in urban and rural sanitation coverage, 1990–2012 10

9 22

17 8

3 13 9

1 5

0 0

2 6

00 10 5 3

00 4

2 2

00 4

24 25

18 15 29

95 96

10 2

01 2

3 4

1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012

SubSaharan Africa

6 15

Southern Asia

Improved

Southeastern Asia

Shared

Oceania

Latin America & Caribbean

Unimproved

Eastern Asia

Northern Caucasus Africa and Central Asia

Western Asia

1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012

1990 2012

Least Developing Developed developed regions regions countries

World

Open defecation

Fig. A4-3. Trends in urban sanitation coverage (%) in developing regions and the world, 1990–2012

17 46

9 7

0 6

1 12 1

3 22

SubSaharan Africa

Improved

Southeastern Asia

73 54

Shared

Western Asia

Northern Africa

Latin America & Caribbean

4 7

Unimproved

Oceania

68 59

0 6 2

1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012

Southern Asia

0 8 2

0 3 2

3 12

8 15

Eastern Asia

Caucasus and Central Asia

47 28

1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012

1990 2012

Least Developing Developed developed regions regions countries

World

Open defecation

Fig. A4-4. Trends in rural sanitation coverage in developing regions and the world, 1990–2012

UN-Water is the United Nations (UN) inter-agency coordination mechanism for freshwater related issues, including sanitation. It was formally established in 2003 building on a long history of collaboration in the UN family. UN-Water is comprised of UN entities with a focus on, or interest in, water related issues as Members and other non-UN international organizations as Partners. The work of UN-Water is organized around Thematic Priority Areas and Task Forces as well as awareness-raising campaigns such as World Water Day (22 March) and World Toilet Day (19 November). The main purpose of UN-Water is to complement and add value to existing programmes and projects by facilitating synergies and joint efforts, so as to maximize system-wide coordinated action and coherence. By doing so, UN-Water seeks to increase the effectiveness of the support provided to Member States in their efforts towards achieving international agreements on water. PERIODIC REPORTS:

on the status of the freshwater resource. The Report is the result of the strong collaboration among UN-Water Members and Partners and it represents the coherent and integrated response of the UN system to freshwater-related issues and emerging challenges. The report production coordinated by the World Water Assessment Programme and the theme is harmonized with the theme of World Water Day (22 March). From 2003 to 2012, the WWDR was released every three years and from 2014 the Report is released annually to provide the most up to date and factual information of how water-related challenges are addressed around the world.

✓ Strategic outlook ✓ State, uses and management of water resources ✓ Global ✓ Regional assessments ✓ Triennial (2003-2012) ✓ Annual (from 2014) ✓ Links to the theme of World Water Day (22 March)

Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water (GLAAS) is produced by the World Health Organization (WHO) on behalf of UN-Water. It provides a global update on the policy frameworks, institutional arrangements, human resource base, and international and national finance streams in support of sanitation and drinking water. It is a substantive input into the activities of Sanitation and Water for All (SWA).

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

The progress report of the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation (JMP) is affiliated with UN-Water and presents the results

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

World Water Development Report (WWDR) is the reference publication of the UN system

of the global monitoring of progress towards MDG 7 target C: to halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking-water and basic sanitation. Monitoring draws on the findings of household surveys and censuses usually supported by national statistics bureaus in accordance with international criteria.

Strategic outlook Water supply and sanitation Global Regional assessments Biennial (since 2008)

Status and trends Water supply and sanitation Global Regional and national assessments ✓ Biennial (1990-2012) ✓ Annual updates (since 2013)

UN-WATER PLANNED PUBLICATIONS 2014-2015

• UN-Water Technical Advice on a Possible Post-2015 Global Goal for Water • UN-Water Analytical Brief on Wastewater Management • UN-Water Report on the International Year of Water Cooperation • UN-Water Report on the International Decade for Action 'Water for Life' 2005-2015 • UN-Water Country Briefs • UN-Water Policy Brief on Discrimination and the Right to Water and Sanitation • UN-Water Policy Brief on Water Security

More Information on UN-Water Reports at www.unwater.org/publications

By 2012, 116 countries had met the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target for drinking water, 77 had met the MDG target for sanitation and 56 countries had met both targets. The MDG drinking water target of 88% coverage was met in 2010.

Since 1990, almost two billion people have gained access to an improved sanitation facility.

 In 2012, 89% of the population had access to an improved

 The world is not on track to meet the MDG sanitation target.

drinking water source.  Between 1990 and 2012, 1.6 billion people gained access to a piped drinking water supply on premises. Almost 750 million people still rely on an unimproved source for their drinking water.  Since 2000, an average of 50 000 people per day in subSaharan Africa have gained access to an improved drinking water source.

 In 2012, 64% of the population had access to an improved sanitation facility – up 15% from 1990.  Two and a half billion people do not have access to improved sanitation.  One billion people still practise open defecation; nine out of 10 are in rural areas.  Seven out of 10 people without improved sanitation facilities live in rural areas.

 Eighty-two per cent of the world’s population without improved drinking water sources live in rural areas.  T he urban–rural disparity in access to drinking water and sanitation is decreasing in a majority of countries.  A ccess to basic drinking water and sanitation services is generally lower among the poor; disparities in access are also observed for some minority and religious groups.  New priorities for post-2015 monitoring include making the invisible visible by tracking access among marginalized or otherwise disadvantaged populations and monitoring access to water and sanitation in schools and health-care facilities.

JMP website: www.wssinfo.org