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
16
12
Regional drinking water coverage and increase since 1990
15
Progress towards the MDG drinking water target
15
An alternative indicator of progress
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
41Safely managed drinking water services – recommendations
of the Water Quality Task Force
43
44
Safely managed sanitation services – data gaps to be addressed
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
52ANNEX 3: COUNTRY, AREA OR TERRITORY ESTIMATES ON SANITATION
AND DRINKING WATER
74ANNEX 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
6
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
77
56
On track to meet target
31
29
30
Progress insufficient
5
10
–
Not on track to meet target
40
69
20
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
7
 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%
9
17
without access to improved sanitation
from 51% in 1990 to 25% in 2015.
Coverage of improved sanitation
2
7
reduce the proportion of the population
14
MDG
target: 88%
33
increased from 49% in 1990 to 64% in
24
2012. Between 1990 and 2012, almost
11
11
21
MDG
target: 75%
two billion people gained access to an
improved sanitation facility, and open
defecation decreased from 24% to 14%
31
(Fig. 2).
6
 Although the world met the MDG
64
56
drinking water target, 748 million people
– mostly the poor and marginalized –
49
45
still lack access to an improved drinking
water source. Of these, almost a quarter
(173 million) rely on untreated surface
1990
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.
8
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.
9
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
12
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.
30
20
15
17
17
19
18
16
13
9
10
6
6
5
6
1
0
−1
-5
91
92
92
94
Latin America & Caribbean
91
Northern Africa
89
Eastern Asia
86
Southern Asia
87
Western Asia
99
89
South-eastern Asia
100
80
67
64
56
60
40
20
Fig. 4.
Caucasus and Central Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa
Oceania
Least developed countries
Developing regions
0
World
Use of improved drinking water (%)
24
25
Developed regions
Percentage point change 1990-2012
Drinking water coverage in the least developed countries increased from 50% in 1990 to 67%
in 2012
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.
13
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
31
32
1
8
24
9
2
5
9
8
5
7
25
24
27
19
2
11
1
7
9
20
32
1
7
3
12
8
9
24
32
31
72
55
15
25
16
68
72
95
55
58
54
43
48
35
30
28
19
31
92
88
84
2
9
33
38
83
7
17
59
33
27
0
1
4
39
33
23
0
2
6
22
31
54
53
48
10
12
63
3
8
19
6
13
17
29
1
5
7
7
9
20
1
8
56
45
32
17
7
12
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, 1990–2012
14
 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
Fig. 7.
On track
Progress insufficient
Not on track
Insufficient data or not applicable
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.
15
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
26
24
24
21
21
20
18
18
17
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
0
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
16
 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
5
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
5
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
40
35
30
25
20
24
21
19
19
17
15
15
15
9
10
6
5
1
4
0
0
95
71
57
60
36
40
30
35
42
20
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 (%)
67
64
91
Northern Africa
82
80
89
Western Asia
96
100
Fig. 10. Use of improved sanitation facilities in 2012, and percentage point change from 1990 to 2012
17
 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
18
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
36
32
13
12
11
10
26
9
16
3
0
6
7
1
13
0
2
3
1
6
2
19
19
5
46
19
31
59
71
4
82
5
91
89
80
67
91
72
7
35
30
25
67
Improved
Southeastern
Asia
Shared
Oceania
27
Unimproved
Latin
America &
Caribbean
Western
Asia
Northern
Africa
Eastern
Asia
11
21 11
13
19
Caucasus
and Central
Asia
96
6
7
64
57
43
10
1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012
SubSaharan
Africa
16
14
24
13
25
55
0
2
2
31
24
36
35
0
3
2
95
7
Southern
Asia
17
95
47
42
1990 2012
23
26
14
6
24
9
7
2
17
48
11
23
10
3
4
4
6
26
6
8
5
48
15
17
8
7
6
65
3
49
36
12
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, 1990–2012
 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
19
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
20
 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
25
23
17
32
13
13 12
17
16
3
3
8
3
7
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
0
1
1
0
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).
6
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/DSG%20sanitation%20two-pager%20FINAL.pdf
21
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
22
Percentage point reduction
% practising open
% practising open
in practice of open
Country
defecation, 1990
defecation, 2012
defecation, 1990–2012
Ethiopia
92
37
55
Nepal
86
40
46
Viet Nam
39
2
37
Cambodia
88
54
34
Angola
57
24
33
Bangladesh
34
3
31
Pakistan
52
23
29
Peru
33
6
27
Haiti
48
21
27
Benin
80
54
26
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
24
Open defecation prevalence (%)
PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE
100
96
80
77 South Sudan
Poorest 20%
rural
75 Zambezia
65 Chad
60
57 Burkina Faso
60 Tete
50 Sofala
46 Sudan
40
20
0
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
50
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
13
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
82
58
72
43
43
0
89
94
0
7
1
3
3
9
2000
2012
National
19
2000
2012
Afar
10
18
39
14
8
2000
35
2012
Somali
Improved and shared facilities
41
5
6
2000
2012
Gambela
8
2012
Tigray
Unimproved facilities
2000
2012
2000
58
39
2012
2000
56
27
5
2
BenishangulGumuz
2012
Dire
Dawa
Open defecation
2000
54
13
46
16
Oromia
98
62
42
40
7
2000
5
17
14
47
35
32
17
15
17
73
93
24
13
37
37
56
80
9
38
66
85
82
19
37
2
0
11
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
25
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).
7
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
0
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
7
26
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
27
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
40
Rwanda
Mexico
Fiji
Morocco
Egypt
Honduras
20
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
0
10
20
30
40
21 countries
Increasing coverage
Reducing equality
50
60
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
28
 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)
60
Reducing coverage
Increasing equality
7 countries
Chile
40
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
60
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
29
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
80
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
30
 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
60
40
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
8
80
60
45
38
34
30
61
68
63
75
91
40
51
20
59
35
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.
8
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.
31
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
30
Paraguay
Ukraine
20
Belize
Nigeria
Zambia
0
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
0
10
20
30
40
50
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
32
40
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
20
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
0
Increasing coverage
Increasing equality
28 countries
Egypt
0
10
20
30
40
50
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
60
 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).
33
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
57
17
66
41
7
2
5
1995
3
9
4
2
11
9
2010
19
23
1995
2010
35
1995
37
2010
14
40
Poor
Middle
14
2
0
11
2
54
32
Rich
5
6
37
1995
2010
1995
40
0
0
4
2
10
2010
1995
53
2
14
1
10
2010
2
1995
2010
1995
2010
Richest
1
00
1
0
9
Poorest
Poor
Middle
Rich
Richest
16
72
92
PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE
34
15
96
87
3
100
93
96
90
92
86
86
89
13
38
11
4
0
1995
2010
65
81
73
69
14
2010
2010
Type 2: Equitable progress – Rural Peru
85
1995
1995
15
96
4
0
0
34
18
12
2010
44
42
15
29
7
5
22
19
2
Type 1: Uneven progress – Rural Pakistan
Poorest
27
4
2
2
1
63
17
26
25
24
25
84
20
74
16
1995
20
34
58
20
12
Richest
26
31
34
75
3
16
Rich
67
76
17
Middle
61
18
15
7
7
4
Poor
9
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
16
6
8
9
11
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
51
64
66
40
74
46
20
30
30
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
82
98
96
99
95
89
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
35
 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
30
Animist
averages indicate overall improvements,
these have not been evenly distributed
26
Kimbanguiste
across the population. People with
No religion
traditional animist religions tend to be
more likely to practise open defecation
21
Other Christian
than those following Christianity, Islam
19
16
Protestant
or other established religions (Fig. 32).
Muslim
12
Catholic
12
Eglise de Réveil
11
Education
 Those without an education are also
more likely to defecate in the open. The
9
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
3
Rural
20
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
10
that practises open defecation (Fig. 33).
40
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
30
Proportion of population (%)
tertiary – or university level – education
36
20
80
76
71
70
60
50
59
54
48
34
34
40
48
34
30
20
17
15
14
9
5
10
4
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
76
80
70
61
60
53
55
53
43
40
36
20
10
15
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
37
Proportion of the population with an improved facility (%)
100
87
87
87
85
80
68
65
59
60
56
41
40
20
35
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
38
 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
9
 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
40
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
9
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
or
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
41
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
12
90
32
80
Proportion of population (%)
PROGRESS ON DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION 2014 UPDATE
2
6
2
2
5
7
15
13
67
69
71
1
1
4
1
2
4
12
17
53
10
50
1
5
2
1
8
25
10
11
7
1
5
2
3
5
6
60
5
2
18
41
14
93
40
37
21
30
5
6
10
18
76
4
7
20
40
23
26
Latin America & Caribbean
Caucasus and Central Asia
South-eastern Asia
Southern Asia
Oceania
Sub-Saharan Africa
0
Developed regions
11
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
42
7
2
10
18
70
2
Western Asia
1
0
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
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).
43
 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
44
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,
12
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).
13
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
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
Poorest
Poor
Middle
Rich
Mongolia
50
Bhutan
50
Nepal
60
Swaziland
60
Zimbabwe
70
Senegal
70
Sierra Leone
80
Mali
80
Democratic
Republic of the Congo
90
Malawi
90
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
45
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
46
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.
14
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
48
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
17
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
16
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
 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 2000–2007
Number of datasets
since 2008
Western Asia
0
0
0
Sub-Saharan Africa
3
5
29
South-eastern Asia
1
3
7
Southern Asia
2
1
4
Oceania
0
0
4
Northern Africa
1
0
1
Latin America & the Caribbean
1
7
21
Caucasus and Central Asia
3
1
1
Eastern Asia
1
0
1
Region
Developed regions
Total
0
2
7
12
19
75
49
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
50
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
People’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
51
ANNEX 3: COUNTRY, AREA OR TERRITORY ESTIMATES ON SANITATION AND DRINKING WATER
52
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
13
Met target
4
Met target
19
Not on
track
12
Met target
26
On track
32
Met target
34
–
–
Met target
15
On track
NA*
Not on
track
11
Met target
16
Met target
5
Met target
28
On track
21
On track
49
Not on
track
19
–
–
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
2
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
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
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
49
Not on
track
NA*
Not on
track
10
Met target
20
Met target
26
Not on
track
24
On track
30
On track
13
Met target
12
Met target
4
Met target
14
Met target
16
Met target
5
Progress
insufficient
16
Met target
21
Met target
50
Met target
20
Met target
6
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.
53
54
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
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
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
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
7
Met target
30
Not on
track
8
–
–
–
20
Not on
track
16
On track
0
On track
19
On track
16
Not on
track
13
–
–
Met target
NA*
Not on
track
10
Not on
track
17
Not on
track
23
Not on
track
14
Met target
12
Met target
25
Not on
track
29
Not on
track
8
Not on
track
5
Met target
18
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)
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
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
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
7
Met target
37
On track
30
–
–
–
33
Met target
24
Met target
2
Met target
14
Met target
15
–
–
–
–
Not on
track
NA*
Met target
40
Not on
track
27
Met target
37
On track
29
Met target
12
Met target
15
On track
30
Not on
track
18
Not on
track
21
Met target
15
55
56
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
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
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
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
24
On track
18
–
–
–
5
Met target
17
On track
19
Not on
track
7
On track
NA*
Met target
7
Met target
16
Met target
4
Met target
26
Not on
track
15
Met target
5
Not on
track
9
–
–
Progress
insufficient
17
Met target
27
Met target
26
On track
12
–
–
–
–
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
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
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
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
17
On track
16
–
–
–
25
Met target
13
On track
19
Not on
track
17
On track
NA*
On track
4
Met target
16
Met target
4
Not on
track
6
Not on
track
15
Met target
5
Met target
23
–
–
Not on
track
9
On track
22
Met target
21
Met target
11
–
–
–
–
57
58
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
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
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
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
18
Met target
18
Met target
4
Met target
7
Met target
36
Not on
track
12
Not on
track
12
Not on
track
18
Not on
track
NA*
Met target
NA*
Not on
track
7
Met target
2
Met target
2
Not on
track
4
–
–
Progress
insufficient
5
On track
28
Not on
track
9
Not on
track
10
Progress
insufficient
9
Not on
track
7
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
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
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
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
31
Met target
12
Met target
4
Met target
7
On track
32
Met target
13
Met target
29
Met target
33
Met target
NA*
Met target
NA*
Met target
35
Met target
2
Met target
2
On track
4
Met target
9
Met target
5
Met target
29
On track
27
Met target
34
Met target
17
Not on
track
11
59
60
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
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
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
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
30
Met target
NA*
Met target
14
Not on
track
14
Not on
track
19
Met target
21
Met target
30
On track
17
Met target
21
–
–
Not on
track
6
Met target
1
On track
32
On track
11
Not on
track
10
Not on
track
12
Met target
41
Progress
insufficient
9
Met target
42
–
–
–
–
Not on
track
8
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)
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
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
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
26
Met target
NA*
Met target
14
Met target
25
Met target
19
On track
15
On track
27
Met target
17
Met target
21
Met target
6
Not on
track
6
Met target
1
Not on
track
30
Not on
track
9
Not on
track
24
Progress
insufficient
18
Not on
track
41
Met target
16
Met target
35
Not on
track
NA*
Met target
30
Progress
insufficient
10
61
62
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
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
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
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
7
On track
15
Met target
NA*
Met target
17
Not on
track
6
Not on
track
3
Met target
22
Met target
35
Not on
track
9
Met target
5
Progress
insufficient
11
–
–
Not on
track
12
Progress
insufficient
6
Met target
21
On track
22
Met target
1
Not on
track
15
–
0
–
–
On track
19
Not on
track
11
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
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
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
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
32
–
–
Met target
NA*
Met target
17
Not on
track
23
Met target
41
Met target
22
Met target
22
Met target
36
Met target
5
On track
7
Met target
16
Not on
track
21
Met target
5
Met target
19
Not on
track
NA*
Met target
1
Met target
26
On track
2
Met target
19
On track
15
Not on
track
19
63
64
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
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
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
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
22
Not on
track
9
Not on
track
2
Not on
track
19
Met target
5
Met target
17
–
–
Not on
track
11
Not on
track
5
Not on
track
4
Met target
NA*
Progress
insufficient
NA*
Met target
10
Met target
38
Not on
track
18
Met target
25
Progress
insufficient
19
Not on
track
4
Met target
33
On track
18
On track
22
–
–
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
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
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
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
24
Met target
25
–
6
Met target
23
Met target
5
–
–
Met target
13
On track
17
Not on
track
25
Not on
track
24
Not on
track
NA*
Met target
NA*
Met target
10
Met target
37
On track
21
–
–
Met target
22
Not on
track
13
Met target
35
On track
17
Met target
21
–
–
65
66
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
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
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
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
5
Not on
track
NA*
Met target
71
Met target
6
On track
NA*
On track
15
–
–
Not on
track
NA*
On track
29
–
–
–
–
–
–
Not on
track
6
–
–
Not on
track
19
Met target
31
Not on
track
21
On track
NA*
Not on
track
13
Not on
track
5
Met target
26
Met target
1
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
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
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
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
5
–
–
Met target
71
Met target
10
Met target
NA*
On track
15
–
–
Met target
NA*
Not on
track
22
Not on
track
14
On track
12
Met target
3
Met target
12
–
–
Met target
39
Met target
29
Progress
insufficient
26
Not on
track
NA*
Not on
track
13
Progress
insufficient
27
Met target
26
Met target
1
67
68
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
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
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
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
4
–
10
–
–
On track
19
–
–
Met target
14
Met target
22
Not on
track
0
Not on
track
10
Not on
track
13
Met target
7
Met target
10
Met target
29
Met target
25
Met target
8
–
4
Not on
track
10
Not on
track
2
Met target
6
Not on
track
4
Not on
track
5
Met target
18
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
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
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
1990
2000
2012
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
4
–
21
–
–
Met target
21
–
–
Met target
14
Met target
23
Not on
track
-2
Met target
18
Met target
29
Met target
7
Met target
10
On track
25
On track
10
Met target
26
On track
3
On track
29
Not on
track
21
Met target
NA*
Met target
7
–
–
Met target
18
69
70
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
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
1990
2000
2012
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
17
Met target
14
–
–
On track
8
Not on
track
14
Not on
track
NA*
On track
66
Met target
6
Not on
track
6
Met target
11
Not on
track
NA*
Met target
5
Met target
21
Progress
insufficient
27
–
–
Met target
27
Met target
26
Progress
insufficient
24
Not on
track
14
Not on
track
3
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
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
1990
2000
2012
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
20
Not on
track
-1
–
–
Met target
8
Met target
37
On track
NA*
Met target
67
Met target
6
Not on
track
15
On track
11
Met target
NA*
Met target
4
Not on
track
10
Met target
34
–
–
Met target
26
Not on
track
12
Not on
track
11
Not on
track
25
Not on
track
7
71
72
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
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
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
10
Met target
22
Met target
23
Met target
13
Not on
track
16
Not on
track
19
On track
20
On track
27
Not on
track
7
On track
17
Met target
16
On track
5
Not on
track
18
Not on
track
15
Not on
track
16
A dash (–) represents data not available at the time of publication. 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.
2
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.
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
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
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
24
On track
18
Met target
17
Met target
9
Met target
24
Met target
21
Met target
21
On track
26
Not on
track
14
Met target
17
Not on
track
11
Met target
5
Met target
21
Not on
track
24
Met target
18
73
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
3
13
12
2
8
49
41
0
6
44
1
9
39
0
4
3
5
2
4
18
20
1
3
1
3
0
6
13
10
8
0
5
4
1
4
10
0
4
4
1
5
7
0
3
3
1
2
5
0
2
3
5
16
50
74
34
41
50
51
74
83
86
86
91
85
92
87
94
92
21
00
2
1
4
0
4
14
16
81
80
51
71
98
74
54
Southern
Asia
Piped on premises
22
10
2
97
29
Southeastern
Asia
0
5
95
1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012
SubSaharan
Africa
14
1
6
42
51
42
2
Oceania
Caucasus Northern
and Central
Africa
Asia
Other improved
Unimproved
Western
Asia
Latin
America &
Caribbean
Eastern
Asia
33
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
74
12
18
3
5
12
34
1
10
30
40
10
9
2
8
13
13
23
18
13
31
40
23
49
15
12
3
17
16
47
29
11
5
8
45
29
15
41
74
66
Oceania
Piped on premises
Southeastern
Asia
30
36
Eastern
Asia
Unimproved
79
44
56
2
Western
Asia
83
33
12
Southern Caucasus
Asia
and Central
Asia
Other improved
53
40
1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012
SubSaharan
Africa
13
27
47
66
5
34
44
31
6
11
15
55
57
4
0
2
27
34
13
15 15
28
16
0
6
12
24
28
49
57
12
12
74
72
47 25
1
10
15
34
29
6
21
13
40 26
3
Latin
Northern
America &
Africa
Caribbean
4
11
25
18
29
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
9
22
20
9
17
8
13
7
9
10
3
9
3
13
9
3
6
11
8
1
5
2
7
30
6
10
0
0
2
6
0
00 10
5 3
00
4
2
2
2
00
4
20
24
25
18
15
29
15
55
80
75
80
76
92
87
95 96
76
64
96
94
96
10
2
4
01
2
3
4
6
6
9
17
9
14
13
13
22
97
68
64
53
97
76
73
80
48
41
38
1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012 1990 2012
SubSaharan
Africa
9
26
33
69
41
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
34
80
9
7
8
5
18
21
9
6
2
31
18
59
29
4
9
0
6
2
27
1
12
1
30
3
22
23
SubSaharan
Africa
Improved
Southeastern
Asia
26
73
54
Shared
4
Western
Asia
Northern
Africa
92
12
30
9
4
57
16
Latin
America &
Caribbean
9
90
4
7
24
Unimproved
33
86
87
37
Oceania
27
17
19
27
14
63
3
38
71
4
18
68
59
29
53
3
63
42
0
6
2
13
14
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
95
37
3
12
59
7
8
15
11
5
10
18
42
18
28
14
40
53
33
16
13
Eastern
Asia
Caucasus
and Central
Asia
43
31
47
28
21
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
75
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