SNAPSHOT of GLOBAL and REGIONAL URBAN WATER, SANITATION and HYGIENE INEQUALITIES © United Nations Children’S Fund (UNICEF), 2020

Home , Improved sanitation

SNAPSHOT OF GLOBAL AND REGIONAL URBAN WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE INEQUALITIES © United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 2020

Suggested citation: United Nations Children’s Fund, Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities, UNICEF, New York, 2020.

Front cover photo credit: © UNICEF/UNI324049

General disclaimers: The designation employed and the presentation of the materials in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNICEF concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of UNICEF.

Edited by Phil Poirer Copy editing and proof reading by Green Ink Publishing Design and layout by SL Domestic Data Streamers SNAPSHOT OF GLOBAL AND REGIONAL URBAN WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE INEQUALITIES

1 2

Introduction 4 Background 5 1. Report scope, definitions and data sources 11 2. WASH coverage in expanding urban populations 15 3. Urban WASH disparities across countries and regions 25 4. Poverty-related urban WASH inequalities 35 5. Other forms of urban WASH inequalities 43 6. Progress in reducing WASH disparities in urban areas 51 7. Eliminating inequalities in urban WASH services 57 Endnotes 60 Annex 1: 61 WASH service ladders Annex 2: 63 Regional and country groupings Annex 3: 65 Statistical tables – Inequalities in basic water, sanitation and hygiene services

3 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

INTRODUCTION

ustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 calls picture of the progress being made, global and for universal access to water, sanitation regional disparities – and where efforts are required and hygiene (WASH) services for all people to achieve the ambitious goal of leaving no one wherever they are, including those living in behind in access to WASH services. urban areas. In the world’s rapidly expanding Scities and towns, this is becoming a major challenge. While recognizing other sources of data that might be available, this report extensively uses estimates Although coverage estimates from the WHO/ from the JMP global database, which includes UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water national data sets on household WASH services, for Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene (JMP) show that analysis of WASH inequalities in urban areas. The good progress has been made in improving access primary focus of the snapshot is domestic WASH to household and institutional WASH services in services at the household level, due to limited urban areas, there are some regions and countries availability of data on urban inequalities in institutional that are falling behind. If the world is to meet its WASH services (in schools and health-care facilities). commitments under the Sustainable Development The snapshot concentrates on basic levels of service, Goals by 2030, these shortcomings must be but also includes discussion on disparities in access addressed. to higher service levels, up to safely managed drinking water and sanitation. This report gives a snapshot of urban WASH inequalities around the world, to present a clearer

4 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

BACKGROUND Urban WASH progress and disparities1

he global proportion of the urban population (it fell very slightly from 86 per cent to 85 per cent). with access to at least a basic2 household There are no global estimates on trends for hygiene water service increased marginally from in urban areas, because of a lack of data. 95 per cent in 2000 to 97 per cent in 2017. For basic sanitation, there was a larger There are wide disparities in coverage across the Tincrease, from 79 per cent to 85 per cent over world, with sub-Saharan Africa and least-developed the same period (Figure 1). About 1 per cent of countries (LDCs) regions having substantially lower the urban population were still practicing open access to at least basic water and sanitation than defecation in 2017 compared to 5 per cent in 2000. other regions3. However, progress was made in At higher service levels, progress was mixed: the LDCs at a faster pace than global averages, with an proportion of the world’s population with access to increase of 8 percentage points in access to both safely managed sanitation services rose substantially basic water and basic sanitation between 2000 and 2017. (from 36 per cent to 47 per cent), but there was barely any progress for safely managed water

In 2017, eight out of ten people used safely managed drinking water services and nearly five out of ten people used safely managed sanitation services in urban areas

1 0 100 100 1 3 2 Surface water 5 Open defecation 2 1 4 9 Unimproved 8 Unimproved 11 9 Limited Limited 8 80 Basic 80 Basic Safely managed Safely managed

38 60 60 44

86 85

Population (%) Population 40 (%) Population 40

47 20 20 36

0 0 2000 2017 2000 2017

Figure 1. Global drinking water and sanitation coverage in urban areas, 2000 - 2017 (per cent)

5 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Since 2000, urban coverage of at least basic drinking water services has increased in all SDG regions, except for Europe and Northern America

0 0 0 0 100 04 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 3 0 1 0 0 4 1 3 30 01 2 2 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 4 3 6 3 1 1 0 8 7 3 2 3 7 6 1 3 9 6 7 1 11 2 17 2 5 7 8 14 9 9 9 80 27 34 20 0 23 34 32 60 36 31 97 97 97 92 92 95 91 91 91 94 97 95 40 82 82 66 64 69 62 50 52 20 42 45

0 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 Sub-Saharan Central and Latin America Eastern Australia Europe and Oceania Northern Landlocked Least Small Island Africa Southern and the and South- and Northern America Africa and Developing Developed Developing Asia Caribbean Eastern Asia New Zealand Western Asia Countries Countries States

Surface water Unimproved Limited Basic Safely managed Figure 2. Global and regional drinking water coverage in urban areas, 2000–2017 (per cent)

Since 2000, urban coverage of at least basic sanitation services has increased in all SDG regions, except for Oceania

2 0 3 100 6 3 1 2 2 1 1 11 4 2 3 4 2 2 7 10 4 5 3 3 11 6 5 9 11 19 4 5 6 5 15 14 13 9 18 19 19 10 17 6 6 21 80 24 19 19 8 10 30 46 9 22 17 48 14 54 60 32 28 53 29 21 68 85 82 40 72 79 75 83 74 25 70 60 20 57 61 49 47 20 40 37 39 28 20 17 15 0 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 Sub-Saharan Latin America Northern Eastern Europe and Oceania Central and Australia Least Small Island Landlocked Africa and the Africa and and South- Northern America Southern and Developed Developing Developing Caribbean Western Asia Eastern Asia Asia New Zealand Countries States Countries

Insufficient data Open defecation Unimproved Limited Basic Safely managed

Figure 3. Global and regional sanitation coverage in urban areas, 2000–2017 (per cent)

In most countries, WASH coverage levels are higher in services. Such inequalities can be so large that many of urban than in rural areas: in 2017 the gap in global coverage the most marginalized households in urban areas fare levels between rural and urban areas was 16 percentage worse than average rural households. points for access to at least basic water services, and 26 points for access to at least basic sanitation. However, Poverty-related disparities are common within countries – while urban WASH coverage is certainly higher overall than illustrated by the two country examples shown in Figures for rural communities, there are further deep inequalities in 4 and 5. In both cases, the poorest urban households have intra-urban access. In addition, rapid urbanization threatens much lower levels of access to WASH services than the to exacerbate existing inequalities in urban WASH national average.

6 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the gap in coverage of at least basic drinking water services between the richest and the poorest in urban areas was 59 percentage points in 2017

Global Regions Countries Urban/rural Urban wealth quintile

100 Richest urban

Urban

Democratic Republic 40 of the Congo Poorest urban

Rural 20

Proportion of the population using basic drinking water services of the population using basic drinking water (%) Proportion 0

Figure 4. Inequalities in use of at least basic water services in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2017 (per cent) © UNICEF/UN022205/Balasundaram

7 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

In the Philippines, the gap in coverage of at least basic sanitation services between the richest and the poorest in urban areas was 46 percentage points in 2017

Global Regions Countries Urban/rural Urban wealth quintiles

100 Richest urban

80 Urban Philippines Rural

Poorest urban

20 Proportion of the population using basic sanitation servicesProportion (%) 0

Figure 5. Inequalities in use of at least basic sanitation services in the Philippines, 2017 (per cent)

Such household wealth-related inequalities are The impact of the global COVID-19 pandemic increasingly well documented: the JMP now is more severe in urban areas because of high has data sets incorporating wealth quintile population density, poor quality of housing, and disaggregation in 91 countries. This snapshot inadequate access to basic services and vital report also highlights other disparities that exist in infrastructure such as water, sanitation and urban WASH service delivery. However, data are hygiene. The existing deep inequalities in access still limited on intra-urban disparities, especially to WASH services make urban dwellers, especially standardized data that can be used for regional those living in slums and other forms of informal or global comparisons, such as urban-specific settlements, even more vulnerable to COVID-19. data for subnational regions and for primary and Addressing the urban WASH challenges is now secondary cities, and specific data on peri-urban more important than ever. areas, informal settlements and other urban areas. Disaggregation – and coverage data generally – are particularly limited in the area of institutional WASH.

8 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Urbanization trends

he majority of the world’s people now live in By 2030, an estimated 60 per cent of the world’s urban areas, and urban populations are rapidly population will be urban dwellers, and 68 per cent by expanding. In 2018, 55 per cent of the world’s 20507. This rapid growth is driven by the search for population – some 4 billion people – were economic opportunity, as well as migration because living in urban areas, nearly a third of whom of conflict, insecurity, climate change, natural Twere children4. It is estimated that over 1 billion of disasters and environmental degradation. the urban population were living in slums in 20185. Rapid urbanization has increased the demand for The global urban population is expanding by water, sanitation and hygiene services for a large and approximately 220,000 every day, with most of this diverse urban population, and in many cases public growth concentrated in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa6. services are not able to meet this demand.

Critical urban WASH issues

WASH coverage in expanding urban populations: Inequalities in access to WASH services have worsened in some countries, even where overall Progress has not quite kept pace with population urban coverage levels have increased. growth in urban areas: Globally, there were more people without at least basic water and sanitation Poverty-related urban WASH inequalities: services in 2017 than there were in 2000. Poor urban households have much lower levels Most SDG regions include countries where urban of access to basic WASH services than richer coverage of at least basic water services is not households. keeping up with population growth, and the situation is worse for basic sanitation. Poverty-related inequalities are prevalent across different levels of WASH services. The goal of universal basic WASH services in urban areas by 2030 will not be achieved at current Other forms of urban WASH inequalities: trajectories. The burden of water collection falls mainly on Urban WASH disparities across countries women and girls. and regions: Inequalities are exacerbated in fragile and The number of people without access to at least emergency-affected countries. basic services in urban areas has increased in sub-Saharan Africa and across the least-developed Access to contamination-free drinking water countries group since 2000. varies widely within countries. The proportion of the urban population without Inequalities are exacerbated by affordability basic service coverage has also increased in some of WASH services. countries. Disparities in access to basic and safely managed services are pronounced in urban areas and vary across SDG regions.

9 10

REPORT SCOPE, DEFINITIONS AND 1DATA SOURCES © UNICEF/UNI367259/Fazel

11 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Scope of this report

his snapshot uses available JMP data sets institutional WASH services (in schools and health- and coverage estimates to explore WASH care facilities). The snapshot concentrates on basic inequalities in urban areas at global, regional, levels of service, but also includes discussion on national and subnational levels. This includes disparities in access to higher service levels, up to data that cover virtually every country in the safely managed drinking water and sanitation. Tworld and, in many cases, data disaggregation that allows analysis of multiple disparity factors including Regional analyses use the eight SDG regions, as well poverty, fragility, gender and WASH service levels. as other country groupings (such as LDCs), reflecting This snapshot includes both an analysis of the official groupings used in the JMP reports. A full list current picture using the latest available data, of countries in the groupings used for this report is and trends over the 2000–2017 period. given in Annex 2.

The focus of the snapshot is domestic WASH services at the household level, because of limited data across regions for detailed analysis of

Definitions: Urban areas classification and WASH service ladders Urban areas

rban areas can generally be classified as a Peri-urban areas are physically just outside existing formal or informal settlement, a peri-urban urban areas or along infrastructural corridors outside area or a small town. However, there is no cities that have all or some characteristics of urban uniform definition of what constitutes a city conditions: dense populations, specific economic or urban area globally. Every country defines activities, and an intensive concentration of mobility Ucities or urban areas according to its own set of or other flows, with the population living there usually criteria, mostly based on administrative, demographic, utilizing services in the city. economic and physical parameters. These terms are necessarily flexible and context-specific, but they can Small towns display a broad blend of urban and be defined broadly as set out below8 . rural characteristics. A small town will often be smaller than a city or secondary town, but larger and Informal settlements are urban areas with one or denser than a rural village. However, as with other more of the following characteristics: poor structural definitions of urban settings, a ‘small town’ may also quality of housing; overcrowding; inadequate often be identified based on explicit, country-specific access to water and/or sanitation and other vital criteria. infrastructure; and insecure residential status. Long-term camps for refugees and internally displaced people (IDPs) are an example of an informal settlement.

Slums are another type of informal settlement, usually marked by severe deprivation and exclusion, often located on the most hazardous urban land, and characterized by poverty and large agglomerations of dilapidated housing.

12 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

WASH service ladders

he JMP uses service ladders for global monitoring of inequalities in service levels. The service ladders have been updated for SDG monitoring and include information Ton both the types of facilities people use and the levels of service provided. They are used in this report to visualize both status and trends in inequalities in service levels at global, regional, national and subnational levels. More detail on WASH service ladders can be found in Annex 1.

Data sources and availability

nless otherwise stated, all figures in this snapshot report are based on either JMP coverage estimates or national data sources contained in the JMP global databases. The Ucoverage estimates are based on the latest available data for domestic WASH services at the household level. All data are available online at washdata.org and in the latest JMP report 9.

The latest JMP report on WASH in households (2000–2017) has basic drinking water and basic sanitation data covering the entire global urban population, which means that there are coverage estimates at the global level and estimates for all SDG regions and other regional groupings (see Table 1). There are fewer countries with national estimates for the much newer ‘safely managed’ service level indicator for both water and sanitation; data for this service level were available for just 49 per cent of the global urban population for water and 58 per cent for sanitation. The data set on hygiene in urban areas is even more limited, with data on 76 countries covering just 39 per cent of the world’s population – sufficient for estimates in just two SDG regions. © UNICEF/UNI356134/Tineo

13 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

% of population and # of Drinking water Sanitation Hygiene countries covered by available data in 2017 Basic Safely Basic Safely Basic managed managed

World (231) 94% (175) 49% (55) 93% (173) 58% (75) 39% (76) SDG regions

Australia and New Zealand (2) 100% (2) 84% (1) 16% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0)

Central and Southern Asia (14) 100% (14) 32% (9) 100% (14) 2% (1) 88% (10)

Eastern and South-Eastern Asia (19) 88% (15) 69% (8) 88% (14) 67% (5) 22% (9)

Latin America and the Caribbean (48) 93% (26) 58% (11) 93% (26) 77% (10) 39% (12)

Europe and Northern America (53) 100% (46) 32% (7) 100% (46) 87 (35) 0% (0)

Oceania (19) 73% (10) 0% (0) 73% (10) 2% (2) 10% (3)

Sub-Saharan Africa (51) 99% (45) 60% (15) 99% (45) 35% (8) 91% (34)

Northern Africa and Western Asia (25) 82 % (17) 18% (3) 82% (17) 74% (14) 46% (8) Other regional groupings

Least developed countries (47) 99 % (44) 41% (13) 99% (44) 16% (9) 91% (36)

Landlocked developing countries (32) 99 % (31) 51% (14) 99% (31) 34% (11) 78% (23)

Small island developing States (57) 85% (28) 13% (2) 85% (28) 34% (4) 60% (12)

Basic and safely managed estimates are calculated where data are available for at least 50 per cent and 30 per cent of the respective populations

Note: Proportion of population based on national estimates for safely managed

Excludes countries with no urban population (Tokelau, Wallis and Futuna)

Table 1. Data coverage for WASH indicators for urban household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene

Data are even more limited for institutional WASH. This snapshot report on urban WASH inequalities Baselines for both WASH in schools and WASH uses the JMP data for analysis of cross-region, in health-care facilities have been developed cross-country and other disparities in access to only recently, meaning the number of qualifying services. The snapshot uses further disaggregation surveys on which to build the databases is for its examination of intra-urban inequalities. currently limited. As the research and data sets These disaggregated data are also limited, but do develop and improve in these areas, they will exist for a growing number of countries. The most provide invaluable insights into progress and gaps; commonly available disaggregation is in the area however, it is not possible to include such analysis of household wealth: there are now 91 countries for WASH in institutions in urban areas in this with coverage data disaggregated by household snapshot report. wealth quintiles.

14 Snapshot ofglobalandregionalurbanwater, andhygiene sanitation inequalities 2 POPULATIONS EXPANDING URBAN WASH COVERAGEIN

Progress in WASH services has not kept pace with population growth in The goal of universal basic WASH urban areas; there were more people services in urban areas by 2030 will not without at least a basic water and be achieved at current rates of progress. 1 sanitation service in 2017 than there 3 were in 2000.

Between 2000 and 2017, the number At current trajectories, most countries of people without basic drinking are not on track to achieve ‘nearly water services has increased from universal’ (greater than 99 per cent) 134 million to 144 million; and the coverage by 2030 in urban areas. In 2 number of people without access to 4 almost all cases, rates of progress are basic sanitation services increased, slower among poor households than from 593 million to 607 million. among richer ones. © UNICEF/UNI356694/Filippov

16 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Progress has not kept pace with population growth in urban areas

etween 2000 and 2017, 1.1 billion people and sanitation service in 2017 than there were gained access to safely managed drinking in 2000. Neither water nor sanitation services water, and 927 million people gained access have kept pace with urban population growth in to safely managed sanitation in urban areas. every country in the SDG regions of sub-Saharan However, progress has not quite kept pace Africa and Oceania. Only in the Australia and New Bwith urban population growth: globally, there Zealand SDG region has no country fallen behind in were more people without at least a basic water terms of urban WASH services.

Between 2000 and 2017, 1.1 billion people gained access to safely managed drinking water in urban areas

4.5 Surface water

4 Unimproved Limited 3.5 Basic

3 Safely managed

2.5

1. 5 Population (billions) Population

0.5

0 2000 2017

Figure 6. Global urban population using drinking water services, 2000–2017 (billions)

Between 2000 and 2017: However, in the same period:

1.3 billion people gained access to at least a basic The number of people without basic services has drinking water service. increased from 134 million to 144 million.

1.1 billion people gained access to safely managed drinking water services.

17 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Between 2000 and 2017, 927 million people gained access to safely managed sanitation in urban areas

4.5 Open defecation 4 Unimproved 3.5 Limited Basic 3 Safely managed

2.5

Population (billions) Population 1. 5

0.5

0 2000 2017

Figure 7. Global urban population using sanitation services, 2000–2017 (billions) Between 2000 and 2017: However, in the same period:

1.3 billion people gained access to at least a basic The number of people without access to basic sanitation service. sanitation services increased from 593 million to 607 million. 927 million people gained access to safely managed sanitation. The number of people using limited sanitation services increased from 217 million to 377 million. © UNICEF/UNI208886/Nwakalor

18 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

In three of the eight SDG regions, urban coverage of at least basic drinking water services is not keeping up with population growth

Sub-Saharan Africa 0.90 Europe and Northern America 0.96

Oceania 0.96

Eastern and South-Eastern Asia 1. 0 0 Australia and New Zealand 1. 0 0 Northern Africa and Western Asia 1. 01

Central and Southern Asia 1.02 Latin America and the Caribbean 1.07

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 8. Ratio of urban population gaining basic drinking water services to population increase by region, 2000–2017 © UNICEF/UNI340881/Diéguez

19 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Seven out of eight SDG regions10 contain countries in which urban coverage of at least basic water services is not keeping up with population growth

Central and Nepal 0.84 Southern Pakistan 0.93 Asia Iran (Islamic Republic of) 0.96 Bangladesh 0.96 Maldives 0.99

Eastern and Democratic People’s 0.85 South -Eastern Republic of Korea Asia China 0.97 Malaysia 0.99

Latin America Jamaica 0.82 and the Caribbean Haiti 0.85 Cuba 0.90

Europe Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.21 and Belarus 0.42 Northern Albania 0.78 America Italy 0.93 Ireland 0.97 Slovenia 0.98

Oceania Papua New Guinea 0.92 Solomon Islands 0.92 Fiji 0.94

Sub-Saharan Africa Chad 0.62 Cameroon 0.70 Democratic Republic of the Congo 0.71 Niger 0.74 Benin 0.75 Uganda 0.78 Angola 0.79 Kenya 0.82 Ethiopia 0.83 Côte d’Ivoire 0.83 Burkina Faso 0.83 Zambia 0.83 Sierra Leone 0.84 Equatorial Guinea 0.85 Comoros 0.86 Malawi 0.86 Guinea 0.87 Gabon 0.88 Djibouti 0.89 Congo 0.90 Liberia 0.90 Zimbabwe 0.91 Gambia 0.92 Burundi 0.95 Namibia 0.95 Senegal 0.96 Guinea-Bissau 0.97 Rwanda 0.98

Northern Yemen 0.85 Africa and Syrian Arab Republic 0.97 Western Sudan 0.97 Asia Cyprus 0.97 Algeria 0.98 Turkey 0.98 Jordan 0.99 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Figure 9. Ratio of urban population gaining basic drinking water services to population increase by country, 2000–2017 – countries with ratios <1

The sub-Saharan Africa SDG region has the largest In Chad, the urban population increased by number of countries in which urban water services are not 1.6 million, but only 1 million people gained access keeping up with population growth. to at least basic drinking water. Some examples of countries where urban coverage In Yemen, the urban population with at least basic of at least basic drinking water services is not keeping up drinking water increased by 4.7 million between with population growth are: 2000 and 2017, but the urban population more than doubled in that period, increasing by 5.5 million and In Bosnia Herzegovina, the urban population putting huge stress on urban water services. increased by nearly 84,000 between 2000 and 2017, but the number of people with at least basic drinking water increased by only 18,000. 20 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

In two out of eight SDG regions, urban coverage of at least basic sanitation services is not keeping up with population growth

Australia and New Zealand

Sub-Saharan Africa 0.52

Oceania 0.57

Central and Southern Asia 1.03

Europe and Northern America 1.04

Eastern and South-Eastern Asia 1.08

Northern Africa and Western Asia 1.08

Latin America and the Caribbean 1.22

0 0.5 1 1. 5

* Insufficient data

Figure 10. Ratio of urban population gaining basic sanitation services to population increase by region, 2000–2017

Between 2000 and 2017, urban population While basic sanitation services in other SDG growth exceeded the total number of people regions as a whole are keeping up with population gaining at least basic sanitation services in the growth, every region where data is available sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania regions as a whole. contains countries in which sanitation services are not keeping up with population growth. © UNICEF/UN0213118/Noorani

21 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities Urban basic sanitation coverage is not keeping up with population growth in countries across all SDG regions11

0.58 Central and Bangladesh Southern Bhutan 0.71 Asia Kyrgyzstan 0.83 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 0.91 Afghanistan 0.94 Pakistan 0.96 Kazakhstan 0.99 0.54 Eastern Myanmar and Mongolia 0.70 South- China, Hong Kong Special 0.93 Eastern Administrative Region Asia Philippines 0.96 0.60 Latin America Haiti and the Guatemala 0.76 Caribbean Peru 0.87 Suriname 0.90 Dominican Republic 0.94 El Salvador 0.95 Honduras 0.98

Europe and Ireland 0.94 Northern Canada 0.97 America Luxembourg 0.97 Netherlands 0.97 Hungary 0.98 Norway 0.98 France 0.99 Iceland 0.99 Austria 0.99 0.22 Oceania Vanuatu Papua New Guinea 0.25 Nauru 0.65 Tonga 0.76 Solomon Islands 0.92

Sub-Saharan Zimbabwe -0.18 Africa Eswatini 0.01 Ethiopia 0.23 Democratic Republic of the Congo 0.24 Uganda 0.24 Madagascar 0.25 Zambia 0.27 Liberia 0.31 Sierra Leone 0.31 Burkina Faso 0.33 Togo 0.33 Kenya 0.34 Benin 0.34 Ghana 0.34 Chad 0.35 Malawi 0.36 Rwanda 0.37 Congo 0.40 Gambia 0.41 Burundi 0.42 Namibia 0.44 Comoros 0.48 Guinea 0.49 Guinea-Bissau 0.53 Côte d’Ivoire 0.56 Cameroon 0.56 Nigeria 0.62 Gabon 0.64 United Republic of Tanzania 0.64 Niger 0.64 Mali 0.66 Senegal 0.67 São Tomé and Principe 0.67 Equatorial Guinea 0.73 Mozambique 0.73 Lesotho 0.74 Somalia 0.75 Angola 0.77 South Africa 0.88

Northern Syrian Arab Republic 0.57 Africa Algeria 0.87 and Yemen 0.90 Western Asia Sudan 0.94 Jordan 0.97 Cyprus 0.98 - 0.5 0 0.5 1 Excludes countries with declining populations since 2000 Figure 11. Ratio of urban population gaining basic sanitation services to population increase by country 2000–2017 – countries with ratios <1 22 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Some examples of countries in which urban 1.8 million have gained access to at least basic coverage of at least basic sanitation services is not sanitation services. keeping up with population growth are: In Zimbabwe, the urban population has In Bangladesh, the total urban population increased by 1.2 million, but the number of increased by 28 million between 2000 and 2017, people with access to at least basic services but the population using at least basic sanitation has decreased by 130,000 – leading to a services increased by only 16 million. dramatic decrease in coverage from 65 per cent to 46 per cent. In Haiti, the urban population has almost doubled from 3 million to 6 million, but only

The goal of universal basic WASH services in urban areas by 2030 will not be achieved at current rates of progress

t current trajectories, most countries are are on track to achieve sanitation coverage. In addition, not on track to achieve ‘nearly universal’ of the 56 countries where urban open defecation was (>99 per cent) coverage by 2030 in urban still being widely practiced in 2017, fewer than half are areas (not counting the countries that have on track to eliminate or almost eliminate it (i.e. being already achieved this goal). Only one in three practiced by less than 1 per cent of the population) by Acountries with <99 per cent coverage are on track to 2030. In almost all cases, rates of progress are slower achieve drinking water coverage, and just one in five among poor households than among richer ones.

Only 32 out of 97 countries with <99 per cent basic water coverage in 2017 are on track to achieve ‘nearly universal’ coverage (>99 per cent) in urban areas by 2030, and the poorest have even further to go

URBAN POOREST URBAN

8 8

7 32 countries on track 7 17 countries on track 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 33 countries insufficient progress 3 39 countries insufficient progress 2 2 1 1 0 0 -1 -1

-2 32 countries decreasing coverage -2 19 countries decreasing coverage -3 -3

Annual rate of reduction, 2000–2017. Percentage points per year Percentage Annual rate of reduction, 2000–2017. 0 20 40 60 80 100 points per year Percentage Annual rate of reduction, 2000–2017. 0 20 40 60 80 100

Note: Includes countries with >1% lacking basic services in 2017

Figure 12. Progress towards universal access to at least basic drinking water services in urban areas (2000–2017), among countries with <99 per cent urban coverage in 2017

Ninety-seven countries had still not achieved >99 per cent basic water coverage by 2017

1 in 3 of those countries are on track to achieve Only 17 countries are on track to achieve ‘nearly ‘nearly universal’ coverage by 2030, but in 32 universal’ coverage among the poorest wealth quintile, countries access to at least basic water services is and in 19 countries basic water service coverage is actually decreasing in urban areas. decreasing among the poorest urban populations.

23 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Just 28 out of 127 countries with <99 per cent basic sanitation coverage in 2017 are on track to achieve ‘nearly universal’ coverage (>99 per cent) in urban areas by 2030 – and the poorest have even further to go

URBAN POOREST URBAN

8 8

7 28 countries on track 7 8 countries on track 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 73 countries insufficient progress 3 56 countries insufficient progress 2 2 1 1 0 0 -1 -1

-2 26 countries decreasing coverage -2 23 countries decreasing coverage -3 -3 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Annual rate of reduction, 2000-2017. Percentage points per year Percentage Annual rate of reduction, 2000-2017. points per year Percentage Annual rate of reduction, 2000-2017.

Note: Includes countries with >1% lacking basic services in 2017 Figure 13. Progress towards universal access to at least basic sanitation services in urban areas (2000–2017), among countries with <99 per cent urban coverage in 2017 127 countries had still not achieved >99 per cent Only 8 countries are on track to achieve ‘nearly basic sanitation coverage by 2017. universal’ sanitation service coverage among the poorest wealth quintile, and in 23 countries basic 1 in 4 countries are on track to achieve ‘nearly sanitation service coverage is decreasing among the universal’ coverage by 2030, but in 26 countries poorest urban populations. access to at least basic sanitation services is actually decreasing in urban areas. Only 26 of the 56 countries with >1 per cent open defecation in 2017 are on track to achieve ‘near elimination’ (<1 per cent) in urban areas by 2030, and just 17 are on track among the poorest households

URBAN POOREST URBAN

8 8

7 26 countries on track 7 17 countries on track 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 18 countries insufficient progress 3 21 countries insufficient progress 2 2 1 1 0 0 -1 -1

-2 12 countries increasing open defecation -2 20 countries increasing open defecation -3 -3 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Annual rate of reduction, 2000-2017. Percentage points per year Percentage Annual rate of reduction, 2000-2017. points per year Percentage Annual rate of reduction, 2000-2017.

Note: Includes countries with >1% practicing open defecation Figure 14. Progress towards elimination of open defecation in urban areas (2000 – 2017), among countries with >1 percent open defecation in 2017

In 56 countries >1 per cent of the urban population Just 17 countries are on track to achieve ‘near still practiced open defecation in 2017. elimination’ among the poorest wealth quintile, and in more than 1 in 3 countries open defecation rates are Less than half of these countries are on track to increasing among the poorest urban populations. achieve ‘near elimination’ by 2030, and in 12 countries open defecation rates are increasing in urban areas. 24 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

URBAN WASH DISPARITIES ACROSS 3COUNTRIES AND REGIONS © UNICEF/UNI324946/

25 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities HIGHLIGHTS

The number of people in most SDG The largest disparities between basic regions without at least a basic and safely managed water services drinking water and sanitation service for urban populations were observed in declined between 2000 and 2017, sub-Saharan Africa, and in Central and 1 but in sub-Saharan Africa and across 3 Southern Asia. LDCs, the number increased.

The largest disparities between Disparities in access to basic basic and safely managed sanitation and safely managed services are services for urban populations were pronounced in urban areas, and vary observed in Latin America and the 2 widely between SDG regions. 4 Caribbean, and in Northern Africa and Western Asia.

26 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

The number of people without access to at least basic WASH services in urban areas has increased in sub- Saharan Africa and across LDCs

n most SDG regions, the number of people people without at least a basic water service had without at least a basic drinking water and increased by 18 million since 2000, and 97 million sanitation service in urban areas has declined. more people had no access to a basic sanitation However, in sub-Saharan Africa and across LDCs, service. A similar picture emerges across LDCs the number has increased. In sub-Saharan Africa, more widely: urban populations without access to at Iin 2017 there were significantly more people without least basic water and sanitation services have also a basic service in urban areas than there were in increased substantially. 2000. Across that region in 2017, the number of

In some regions, the urban population without at least basic water services increased significantly from 2000 to 2017

100 Surface water Unimproved

80 Limited service

60 32

19 40 15

4 12 7 4

20 25 18 22 18 19 10 18 21 1 18 5 4 8 10 1 6 1 4 4 6 5 8 6 4 5 2 2 6 4 2 0 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2000–2017 2000–2017 2000–2017 2000–2017 2000–2017 2000–2017 2000–2017 2000–2017 2000–2017 2000–2017 2000–2017 Sub-Saharan Eastern and Central and Northern Europe and Latin America Oceania Australia and Least Landlocked Small Island Africa South-Eastern Southern Africa and Northern and the New Zealand developed developing developing Asia Asia Western Asia America Caribbean countries countries states

Figure 15. Urban population with limited, unimproved and no drinking water service by region in 2000 and 2017 (millions)

In sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern and South-Eastern In LDCs, there has been a large increase in people in Asia, and Europe and Northern America SDG regions, urban settings with no access to basic water services. the total number of people in urban areas without basic This equates to 13 million more people without access water services increased. to a basic water service in 2017 than in 2000.

27 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

In some regions, the urban population without at least basic sanitation services increased significantly from 2000 to 2017

300 Open defecation Unimproved Limited service

130

200 64 129 93 54

60 83

44 100 35

91 23 73 33 49 70 32 22 49 35 15 34 11 23 18 10 8 6 5 15 3 4 20 23 22 18 8 13 4 18 13 6 4 0 84 3 6 10 7 1 1 2000–2017 2000–2017 2000–2017 2000–2017 2000–2017 2000–2017 2000–2017 2000–2017 2000–2017 2000–2017 Sub-Saharan Central and Eastern and Latin America Northern Europe and Oceania Least Landlocked Small Island Africa Southern South-Eastern and the Africa and Northern developed developing developing Asia Asia Caribbean Western Asia America countries countries states

Figure 16. Urban population with limited and unimproved sanitation services and open defecation by region in 2000 and 2017

The total numbers of people without access to Landlocked developing countries (LLDCs) have basic sanitation services decreased in all SDG also seen significant declines in access to basic regions between 2000 and 2017, except for services between 2000 and 2017. While rates of sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania regions. open defecation have dropped in those countries, 8 million more people were relying on unimproved In sub-Saharan Africa, the urban population services in 2017, and the number of people using without access to at least basic sanitation increased limited sanitation services more than doubled over by 97 million between 2000 and 2017, and the the period, from 15 million to 33 million. population sharing limited sanitation services more than doubled over the period.

In LDCs, the urban population without at least basic sanitation services increased significantly, by 74 million between 2000 and 2017.

28 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

As mentioned above, data on hygiene services are very few have achieved universal access – and in 23 far less widely available. The number of countries of these countries, the number of people without with data on access to handwashing facilities in access to basic handwashing facilities exceeded urban areas is limited to 76 worldwide. Of these, 5 million people.

Of the 76 countries with data on handwashing facilities, 23 countries had at least 5 million people in urban areas lacking access to basic handwashing facilities in 2017

Turkmenistan 0 Maldives 0 Marshall Islands 0 Belize 0 Vanuatu 0 Guyana 0 Solomon Islands 0 Armenia 0 Kazakhstan 0 São Tomé and Principe 0 Kyrgyzstan 0 Eswatini 0 Timor-Leste 0 Tajikistan 0 El Salvador 0 Mongolia 0 Cambodia 0 Namibia 0 Lesotho 1 Paraguay 1 Guinea-Bissau 1 Lao People’s Democratic Republic 1 Tunisia 1 Iraq 1 Mauritania 1 Cuba 1 Burundi 1 Gambia 1 Myanmar 1 Guatemala 1 Congo 2 Ecuador 2 Rwanda 2 Nepal 2 Mali 2 Sierra Leone 2 Liberia 2 Viet Nam 3 Togo 3 Malawi 3 Syrian Arab Republic 3 Zimbabwe 3 Chad 3 Yemen 3 Egypt 3 Afghanistan 3 Guinea 3 Dominican Republic 4 Algeria 4 Haiti 4 Burkina Faso 4 Senegal 4 Benin 4 Thailand 5 Zambia 5 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 5 Somalia 6 Uganda 7 United Republic of Tanzania 7 Philippines 7 Côte d’Ivoire 9 Ghana 9 Kenya 9 Sudan 9 Mexico 10 Colombia 10 Cameroon 11 Pakistan 12 Angola 13 Ethiopia 16 South Africa 18 Bangladesh 29 Democratic Republic of the Congo 33 Indonesia 41 Nigeria 45 India 91 0 20 40 60 80 100 Population without basic hygiene services (in millions) in 2017

Figure 17. Urban population without basic handwashing facilities by country in 2017 – 76 countries Only 76 countries have data sets on urban household hygiene facilities. The data sets on handwashing facilities are too limited to generate regional or global estimates. 29 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

The proportion of the urban population without basic service coverage has increased in some countries

he proportion of people living in urban (19 countries for water services, 20 for sanitation areas who lack access to basic drinking services). In seven countries, open defecation rates water or sanitation services increased in increased in urban areas over the same period. Tsome countries between 2000 and 2017

In 19 countries, urban coverage of at least basic drinking water services has decreased by at least one percentage point since 2000

-1 -1 -1 -2 -1 -2 -2 -2

-3 -4 -3 -4 -4 -4 -5

-6 -7 -7

-8 -8

-9 -10 -10

Percentage decrease in urban basic drinking water, 2000–2017 decrease in urban basic drinking water, Percentage -10 Fiji Chad Niger North Nepal Kenya Serbia Gabon Belarus Albania Ukraine People’s People’s Jamaica of Korea of Korea Republic Namibia Comoros Cameroon Macedonia Bosnia and Democratic Bangladesh Herzegovina Côte d’Ivoire

Figure 18. Percentage point decrease in proportion of urban population using at least basic drinking water services, 2000–2017 © UNICEF/UNI43025/Mohan

30 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

In 20 countries, urban coverage of at least basic sanitation services has decreased by at least one percentage point since 2000

0 -1 -2 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -3

-4 -5 -5 -5 -5

-6 -6

-8 -8

-10 -10 -11 -11 -11

-12

-14

-16

Percentage point decrease in urban basic sanitation, 2000–2017 Percentage -17

-18 -19 -19

-20 Tonga Jordan Algeria Bhutan Guinea Zambia Uganda Gambia Rwanda Vanuatu Eswatini Namibia Republic Moldova Myanmar Zimbabwe Guatemala Kyrgyzstan Saint Lucia Saint Republic of Republic Papua New Papua Syrian Arab Syrian Burkina Faso

Figure 19. Percentage point decrease in proportion of urban population using at least basic sanitation services, 2000–2017

In seven countries, urban open defecation rates have increased by at least one percentage point since 2000

9 8

6 6

3 2 2 1 1 1

Percentage point increase in urban open defecation, 2000–2017 Percentage 0 Democratic Republic Gabon Argentina Nauru Côte Madagascar Namibia of the Congo d’Ivoire

Figure 20. Percentage point increase in proportion of urban population practicing open defecation, 2000–2017

31 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Disparities in access to basic and safely managed services are pronounced in urban areas, and vary widely between SDG regions

ased on available data, in some regions the where many more people have access to a lower differences in coverage of at least basic level of service (e.g. latrines and septic tanks) than and safely managed water and sanitation to higher levels of service (e.g. safe management services are relatively small, whereas in along the whole sanitation value chain). other regions, there are large disparities. The Bgaps are especially wide in the area of sanitation,

The largest disparities between basic and safely managed water services for urban populations were observed in sub-Saharan Africa, and in Central and Southern Asia

97 At least basic Northern Africa and Western Asia * Safely managed 92 Oceania * Insufficient data * for regional 84 estimate Sub-Saharan Africa 50 96 Central and Southern Asia 62 99 Latin America and the Caribbean 82 98 Eastern and South-Eastern Asia 91 100 Australia and New Zealand 97 99 Europe and Northern America 97

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 21. Proportion of urban population using basic and safely managed drinking water services by region in 2017 (per cent)

32 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

The largest disparities between basic and safely managed sanitation services for urban populations were observed in Latin America and the Caribbean, and in Northern Africa and Western Asia

95 At least basic Northern Africa and Western Asia 49 Safely managed 70 Oceania * Insufficient data * for regional 44 estimate Sub-Saharan Africa 20 74 Central and Southern Asia * 91 Latin America and the Caribbean 37 91 Eastern and South-Eastern Asia 72

Australia and New Zealand * * 99 Europe and Northern America 85

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 22. Proportion of urban population using basic and safely managed sanitation services by region in 2017 (per cent) © UNICEF/UNI324034/

33 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Two-thirds of the world’s urban population use sewer connections, but the use of septic tanks and latrines is growing more quickly, especially in LDCs

20 14 15 11 9 10 9 8 2 5 6 6 7 6 2 3 3 3 0 1 0 1 0

Change 2000–2017 (% pt) Change 2000–2017 -3 -1 -1 -3 -1 0 -2 -5 -2 -4 -3 -4 -6

100

93 40 77 77 63 63

43 42 45 20 38 40 38 33 28 27 30

Use of improved sanitation facilities by type in 2017 (%), urban type sanitationby in 2017 facilities Use of improved 22 22 22 22 17 17 19 15 13 11 11 13 9 13 6 6 3 0 3 Sub- Oceania Central and Eastern and Northern Latin Europe and Least Landlocked Small World Saharan Southern Southern- Africa and America Northern developed developing Islands Africa Asia Eastern Western and the America countries countries developing Asia Asia Caribbean states

Sewer Septic Latrine and other

Figure 23. Percentage point change between 2000 and 2017 by regions, and the proportion of the urban population using sewer connections, septic tanks and latrines, and other improved facilities in 2017

Globally, two out of three people in urban areas Most of the growth in improved sanitation use sewer connections, but in sub-Saharan Africa, systems in LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS was in Central and Southern Asia, and Oceania most on-site systems. people in urban areas use on-site systems.

Between 2000 and 2017, there was no growth in sewer connections in LDCs, and sewer connections actually dropped in both landlocked developing countries (LLDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS).

34 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

POVERTY-RELATED URBAN WASH 4INEQUALITIES © UNICEF/UNI324950/

35 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities HIGHLIGHTS

For sanitation services, 66 countries Poor urban households have much have a gap of at least 20 percentage lower levels of access to basic WASH points between the richest and services than richer households. poorest urban households – and in 57 1 3 of these countries, the gap exceeds 30 percentage points.

For water services, 23 countries have a gap of at least 20 percentage Poverty-related inequalities are points in access to basic drinking prevalent across different levels of 2 water between the richest and 4 WASH services. poorest urban households. © UNICEF/UN021463/Mgemezulu

36 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Poor urban households have much lower levels of access to basic WASH services than richer households n the 91 countries where JMP has For sanitation services, even more countries disaggregated estimates on access to WASH have large gaps between the richest and poorest services by household wealth in urban areas, populations. Almost three-quarters of countries I there is a clear pattern of inequality. (66 countries) have a gap of at least 20 percentage points – and in 57 of these countries, the gap For water services, over a quarter of the 91 countries exceeds 30 percentage points12. (23 countries) have a gap of at least 20 percentage points in access to basic drinking water between the richest and poorest urban households.

In 23 countries the gap in coverage of at least basic drinking water services between the richest and poorest in urban areas was at least 20 percentage points in 2017

Lesotho 20 Sierra Leone 20 Côte d’Ivoire 21 Niger 21 Togo 22 Gabon 23 Cameroon 26 Nigeria 27 Ethiopia 27 Senegal 27 Central African Republic 29 United Republic of Tanzania 29 Zambia 31 Madagascar 31 Kenya 35 Benin 36 Rwanda 37 Angola 37 Burkina Faso 37 Chad 42 Uganda 43 Mozambique 43 Democratic Republic 59 of the Congo 0 20 40 60 80 100

Gap between richest and poorest urban quintiles (per cent)

Figure 24. Percentage point gap in basic water coverage between richest and poorest wealth quintiles in urban areas by country in 2017

The gap in coverage of at least basic drinking In 11 countries, the gap between richest and water services between the richest and poorest in poorest was over 30 points. urban areas was at least 20 percentage points in 23 of 91 countries with available data.

37 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

In 67 countries the gap in coverage of at least basic sanitation services between the richest and poorest in urban areas was at least 20 percentage points in 2017

Guyana 20 Belize 22 Republic of Moldova 23 Rwanda 24 Somalia 24 Pakistan 25 Suriname 26 Yemen 28 Afghanistan 28 Trinidad and Tobago 28 Nigeria 30 Nepal 30 Viet Nam 30 Lao People’s Democratic Republic 30 Nicaragua 31 Honduras 32 Colombia 32 Mali 33 Guatemala 34 Peru 34 Burkina Faso 35 Jamaica 35 Saint Lucia 36 Comoros 37 Dominican Republic 39 Cambodia 39 Indonesia 39 United Republic of Tanzania 41 Lesotho 41 Guinea 41 Madagascar 41 Congo 41 Sierra Leone 42 Zimbabwe 43 Senegal 44 Ethiopia 44 Uganda 44 Philippines 46 Niger 47 Mongolia 47 Bangladesh 48 Ghana 49 Guinea-Bissau 50 Malawi 53 Cameroon 54 Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 56 Angola 57 Togo 57 Chad 58 South Africa 59 Benin 60 Mauritania 60 Gambia 61 Burundi 63 India 64 Zambia 65 Haiti 66 Eswatini 66 Central African Republic 67 Kenya 67 Côte d’Ivoire 68 São Tomé and Principe 69 Liberia 70 Sudan 72 Mozambique 75 Gabon 76 Namibia 82 0 20 40 60 80 100 Gap between richest and poorest urban quintiles (per cent)

Figure 25. Percentage point gap in basic sanitation coverage between richest and poorest wealth quintiles in urban areas by country in 2017 The gap in coverage of at least basic sanitation The gap was at least 30 percentage points in 57 of services between the richest and poorest in urban those countries, and over 50 percentage points in 25 areas was at least 20 percentage points in 67 countries. countries with available data. 38 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Poverty-related inequalities are prevalent across different levels of WASH services

he country examples below13 illustrate a range of poverty-related deprivation across types and T levels of WASH service. © UNICEF/UNI358736/Oo

In Angola, 32 per cent of the poorest urban populations still use unimproved water sources

ANGOLA

2 100 7 5 14

32 32 80 36 36

35 60

40 66 Urban population (%) in 2016 57 58 51 20 34

0 Poorest Poor Middle Rich Richest

Piped or bottled Other improved Unimproved

Figure 26. Use of piped or bottled, other improved and unimproved water sources by urban wealth quintile in Angola (Demographic and Health Survey, 2016)

In Angola, a third of the poorest urban households In Angola, the richest urban wealth quintile is still used unimproved water sources compared to twice as likely to use piped or bottled water than just 2 per cent of the richest households in 2017. the poorest urban wealth quintile.

39 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

In Ethiopia, the poorest urban populations have mainly improved their access to water supplies through non-piped services

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0 Poorest Poor Middle Rich Richest Poorest Poor Middle Rich Richest

Piped DHS 2000 Non-piped DHS 2000 Piped DHS 2016 Non-piped DHS 2016

Change in piped and non-piped (DHS 2000–DHS 2016)

25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 Poorest Poor Middle Rich Richest

Piped Non-piped

Figure 27. Use of piped and non-piped water supplies by urban wealth quintile in Ethiopia, and percentage point change, Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) 2000 and 2016 (per cent) 14

Gains in urban drinking water coverage in Ethiopia Between 2000 and 2016, access to improved have been mainly in the form of piped sources for water sources increased across all urban wealth richer households, but non-piped sources (such quintiles in Ethiopia, although these gains came as boreholes and protected wells) in the poorest largely from non-piped sources for the poorest households. quintile.

40 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

In Bolivia, only one in three of the poorest urban households use sewer connections

100

87 80

60 61

20 Proportion of population using sewer connections (%) of population using sewer Proportion

Figure 28.0 Use of sewer connections by urban wealth quintile in Bolivia, Demographic and Health Survey 2016 (per cent) Poorest Poor Middle Rich Richest

Figure 28. Use of sewer connections by urban wealth quintile in Bolivia, Demographic and Health Survey 2016 (per cent) In Bolivia, nearly 9 out of 10 people among the richest urban wealth quintile use sewer connections, compared with just over 1 in 3 people among the poorest urban wealth quintile.

In Mongolia, use of sewer connections has increased rapidly among richer urban populations

Poorest Poor Middle Rich Richest 0 100 1 2 0

80 36

60 68

98 94 99 100 40 96 98 89 92

20 62

0 31

2005 2014 2005 2014 2005 2014 2005 2014 2005 2014

On-site sanitation Sewer connection

Figure 29. Use of on-site sanitation facilities and sewer connections by urban wealth quintile in Mongolia, Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2005–2014 (per cent) Between 2005 and 2014 in Mongolia, use of sewer connections increased rapidly among the urban rich and middle wealth quintiles, while the poor and the poorest quintiles continued rely on on-site sanitation facilities.

41 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

In Madagascar, 55 per cent of the poorest urban populations still practice open defecation

100 3 Open defecation Unimproved 28 80 Limited Basic 55

60 25

33 Proportion of urban population (%) Proportion 20 43

10 2 0 Poorest Richest

Figure 30. Sanitation service levels by urban wealth quintile in Madagascar, Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2017 (per cent)

In urban Madagascar, just 3 per cent of the richest urban wealth quintile still practiced open defecation in 2017, compared with over half of the poorest wealth quintile.

In Suriname, the richest urban quintile is almost twice as likely to use an emptying service in households using an on-site sanitation service

Urban poorest Urban richest

100

60 65

Proportion of population (%) Proportion 33 34

0 1 8 1 5 0 1 0 0 Safely disposed Emptied and Unsafe discharge Sewer connection Unimproved Open defecation in situ removed offsite sanitation

Figure 31. Proportion of population by type of sanitation facility and method used to dispose of excreta from on-site facilities among the richest and poorest urban wealth quintiles in Suriname, Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2018 (per cent)

In Suriname, most urban households use septic tanks. Two-thirds of the richest households report using an emptying service, compared with just one-third of the poorest. By contrast, over half of the poorest report disposing of the waste in situ (e.g. burying it in a covered pit), compared to just one-third of the richest.

42 Snapshot ofglobalandregionalurbanwater, andhygiene sanitation inequalities 5 INEQUALITIES OF URBANWASH OTHER FORMS

Based on available country-level Access to contamination-free drinking information, the burden of water water varies widely within countries collection falls mainly on women and across household wealth quintiles. 1 and girls. 3

Inequalities are exacerbated by Inequalities are exacerbated in affordability of WASH services with fragile and emergency-affected poorer urban households spending a contexts. higher proportion of their income on 2 4 water than middle-income and high- income households. © UNICEF/UNI160021/Kiron

44 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

The burden of water collection falls mainly on women and girls

lthough the core JMP data set for WASH does not include information on inequalities based on gender across countries and regions, some data are available at country level. However, the example below from ASierra Leone shows a situation that is very likely to be typical for similar country contexts across most of the regions. Figure 32 shows how water collection continues to be a time-consuming task for many urban households, and that women and girls are more likely to have responsibility for this task. © UNICEF/UN039299/Al-Issa

In urban areas of Sierra Leone, one in four people spend over 30 minutes collecting drinking water, and in two out of three households this responsibility falls on women and girls Don’t Know/ Missing Collected by Over 1% non-household 3 hours members 2% 4%

Over 1 hour Boys 11% 8%

Men 31–60 minutes 15% 14%

Girls 13% Up to 30 minutes Women 72% 60%

Figure 32. Drinking water collection among urban households using sources located off-premises in Sierra Leone, 2017 (per cent)15

In Sierra Leone, nearly a quarter of people from urban households spend over 30 minutes collecting water from limited drinking water services, and 1 in 10 spend over 1 hour per trip to go there, collect water and come back, including time spent queueing. Women and girls are responsible for water collection in two out of three urban households in Sierra Leone using sources located off-premises.

45 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Inequalities are exacerbated in fragile and emergency- affected contexts

any people around the world are affected states. The Yemen example below illustrates by interruptions or deteriorations in how people become more reliant on individual or WASH services in protracted crises, and ad hoc solutions when government systems fail. Min resource-poor environments in fragile

In urban areas of Yemen, the population using the government network for drinking water supply has significantly decreased since 1992 16 INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS URBAN YEMEN IN 1992 URBAN YEMEN IN 2013

Other 2% Tubewell / borehole 2% Other 11% Tanker truck 22%

Tanker truck Local network 12% Bottled water Government 0% network 40%

Local network 2% Government network 75% Bottled water 32%

Tubewell / borehole 2%

Figure 33. Proportions of urban populations using different types of improved water source in Yemen, Demographic and Health Survey 1992 and 2013 (per cent)17

Data from Lebanon show that people who are living in informal settlements – many of whom are people displaced from the conflict in Syria – are much less likely to have safe water supplies than other communities.

46 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Disaggregated data from Lebanon show that drinking water sources in informal settlements are much more likely to have very high levels of faecal contamination

>100 11–100 1–10 0

NATIONAL 47% 27% 15% 10%

PALESTINIAN CAMPS 51% 32% 15% 2%

INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS 41% 12% 18% 29%

RESIDENCES 47% 28% 15% 10%

0 20 40 60 80 100

Proportion of population by level of E. coli at distribution point (%)

Figure 34. Proportion of population exposed to different levels of E. coli in drinking water sources in urban areas of Lebanon, 2016 (per cent)18

Relatively few countries have data disaggregated for different urban settlements, but water quality data for Lebanon show that nearly 1 in 3 people living in informal settlements use sources with very high levels of faecal contamination (measured by the level of E. coli ), compared with just 1 in 10 in formal urban residences. © UNICEF/UN057350/Algabal

47 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Access to contamination-free drinking water varies widely within countries

any people continue to rely on non-piped significant inequalities in access to contamination- water sources in urban areas – over free drinking water in both urban and rural areas 30 per cent of residents in some across household wealth quintiles, water service regions. These sources often have levels and geographic regions. a high risk of faecal contamination. MFigure 35 shows that in Paraguay, there are

Disaggregated data from Paraguay reveal significant inequalities in drinking water quality in urban and rural areas

GLOBAL REGIONS COUNTRIES URBAN/ WEALTH WEALTH WEALTH SUB- PIPED/ RURAL NATIONAL RURAL URBAN NATIONAL NON- REGIONS PIPED

98 100 Europe and 98 Chile North America 90 Latin America and the Asunción 84 82 Richest 80 Caribbean Richest 79 80 Bottled 73 World 71 Urban 72 Richest 67 70 Piped Paraguay 64 60 Poorest 53 50 Rural 46 Mexico 43 40 Poorest 37 Sub-Saharan 33 Poorest 27 30 Africa Improved and free from contamination (%) Improved Alto 24 Paraguay 20 Other 19 improved 10

Figure 35. Inequalities in use of improved drinking water sources free from contamination in Paraguay, Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2016 (per cent)19

The integration of water quality testing in But the significant inequalities that can be hidden household surveys enables disaggregation of data behind broad urban versus rural comparisons are by a range of different stratifiers, including rural also clear. Although 80 per cent of sources used by and urban wealth quintiles and subnational regions. the richest in urban populations were found to be For example, in Paraguay, 72 per cent of the urban free from contamination, this was only true for just population use drinking water sources which are over half (53 per cent) of sources used by the urban free from contamination compared with just 46 per poorest populations. cent in rural areas.

48 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Inequalities are exacerbated by affordability of WASH services

n important determinant of what type a higher-level service (such as a water connection of WASH service is used by households fee or building a toilet), as well as the regular costs depends greatly on how much they can they pay for the service itself (tariffs, or operations afford to pay for the service. When faced and maintenance). Their choice also depends on with different options, each household will the type of WASH goods and services that are on Amake their own decision relating to the capital offer in their locality. expenditure they are prepared to spend to access

Evidence shows that poorer urban households spend a higher proportion of their income on water than middle-income and high-income households

4 Total expenditure on WASH (%) WASH on expenditure Total 2

0 Lowest 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Highest

Ghana Pakistan Uganda Mexico

Figure 36. Comparison of household WASH expenditure as a proportion (per cent) of total household expenditure in urban areas of four countries, by income decile 20 In Ghana, Uganda and Mexico, the poorer urban survey has more questions on WASH expenditure, households spend a higher proportion of their including sanitation. income on water than middle-income and high- income households, whereas in Pakistan, the poorer Although lower service levels may have little households pay a lower proportion of their income, financial cost, they do need time and effort, which but still high at 6–7 per cent. have an implicit cost to households. When the value of household time to access water is included, it can Some households, especially poorer ones, will increase the household costs by several percentage have very little WASH expenditure because their points, especially poorer households in urban areas service levels are very low, such as practicing open which are less likely to have a piped connection21. defecation, walking to a community well or free standpipe, or not washing their hands with soap and Furthermore, the health and environmental water. For example, overall 37 per cent of households consequences of poor WASH practices are well in Cambodia and 58 per cent of households in Zambia known and these, in turn, have financial impacts on report zero WASH expenditure, respectively, while in households resulting from health expenditures and Ghana it is only 1 per cent. This lower value in Ghana missed work22. is explained by the fact that the Ghana living standards 49 50

Inequalities in access to WASH For basic sanitation services, the gaps services have worsened in some widened in 22 of 74 countries where countries, even when overall urban there was an increase in coverage 1 coverage levels have increased. 3 levels.

Between 2000 and 2017, gaps between the poorest and richest Progress in reducing inequalities urban households widened in between the richest and poorest 18 of 63 countries where overall in urban areas varies widely across 2 basic urban water coverage levels 4 countries. increased.

52 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Inequalities in access to WASH services have worsened in some countries, even when overall urban coverage levels have increased

ncreasing overall coverage levels do not coverage levels increased between 2000 and guarantee that inequalities will be reduced. 2017. For basic sanitation services, the same In fact, in many countries the opposite is was true for 22 of 74 countries23.The change in true. Gaps between the poorest and richest coverage gaps can be significant, increasing by urban households widened in 18 of 15 per cent or more in some countries. I63 countries where overall basic urban water

Between 2000 and 2017, most countries increased coverage of at least basic water services in urban areas, but not all countries have reduced the gap between the richest and poorest

50 INCREASING COVERAGE INCREASING COVERAGE DECREASING EQUALITY INCREASING EQUALITY

Madagascar

Burkina Faso 0 % pt change in urban basic water (2000-2017) in urban basic water % pt change

-10 Chad Niger DECREASING COVERAGE DECREASING COVERAGE DECREASING EQUALITY INCREASING EQUALITY -20 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 % pt change in gap between richest and poorest quintiles (2000–2017)

Figure 37. Changes in basic water coverage, and inequalities between wealth quintiles, in urban areas by country, 2000–2017 (per cent)

Figure 37 shows how inequalities in basic water same period, Burkina Faso has increased coverage services in urban areas have changed between by 6 percentage points but the gap between richest 2000 and 2017. While most countries have increased and poorest has increased by 16 points. In Niger, coverage (y axis), only some have succeeded in coverage decreased by 10 percentage points in reducing the gap in coverage between the richest urban areas and the gap between richest and and the poorest (x axis). For example, Madagascar poorest decreased by 8 points. Meanwhile, in Chad has increased basic water coverage in urban areas urban coverage of basic water services decreased by 18 percentage points and reduced the gap by 7 percentage points and the gap between richest between richest and poorest by 35 points. Over the and poorest increased by 17 points.

53 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Between 2000 and 2017, most countries increased coverage of at least basic sanitation services in urban areas, but as with water services, not all countries succeeded in reducing the gap between the richest and poorest

70 INCREASING COVERAGE INCREASING COVERAGE DECREASING EQUALITY INCREASING EQUALITY

20 Haiti Viet Nam

0 % pt change in urban basic sanitation (2000-2017) % pt change

Uganda -10 Rwanda

-20

DECREASING COVERAGE DECREASING COVERAGE DECREASING EQUALITY INCREASING EQUALITY -30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

% pt change in gap between richest and poorest quintiles (2000–2017)

Figure 38. Changes in basic sanitation coverage, and inequalities between wealth quintiles, in urban areas by country, 2000–2017 (per cent)

Figure 38 shows how inequalities in basic sanitation by 16 percentage points but the gap between services in urban areas have changed between richest and poorest has increased by 14 points. In 2000 and 2017. While most countries have increased Rwanda, coverage decreased by 11 percentage coverage (y axis), only some of them have points in urban areas and the gap between richest succeeded in reducing the gap in coverage between and poorest reduced by 19 points. Meanwhile, in the richest and the poorest (x axis). For example, Uganda urban coverage of basic sanitation services Viet Nam has increased basic sanitation coverage has decreased by 5 percentage points and the gap in urban areas by 14 percentage points and reduced between richest and poorest has increased by the gap between richest and poorest by 19 points. 9 percentage points. Over the same period Haiti has increased coverage

54 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Progress in reducing inequalities between the richest and poorest in urban areas varies widely across countries he country examples below illustrate the the elimination of open defecation in urban areas – progress made for the richest and poorest showing how the gaps between the urban rich and urban populations between 2000 and 2017 poor have moved over the period. T in basic water and sanitation coverage, and UGANDA ZAMBIA MAURITANIA ZIMBABWE 98 BASIC 95 95 98 97 91 DRINKING 87 92 89 WATER 83 73 74 67 59 57 53

2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017

BOLIVIA HAITI HONDURAS MEXICO (PLURINATIONAL STATE OF) 100 BASIC 96 99 93 95 SANITATION 89 83 82 83

60 63

17 17 7

2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017

CAMBODIA LAO PEOPLE’S PHILIPPINES THAILAND DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OPEN 100 DEFECATION 87 78

49 37

18 13 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017 2000 2017

Richest Poorest Gap between richest and poorest quintiles

Figure 39. Trends in basic drinking water, basic sanitation and open defecation among the richest and poorest wealth quintiles in urban areas, 2000–2017 (per cent) 55 56

UNICEF/UNI356689/Filippov Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

ELIMINATING INEQUALITIES IN URBAN 7WASH SERVICES

57 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

liminating inequalities is a basic human rights services to the urban poor with mechanisms principle which is critical for realizing human in place for monitoring the budget to ensure rights to water and sanitation and leaving no that they are spent as budgeted. This should one behind in access to WASH services. This is also include monitoring whether subsidies are at the core of SDG 6: ensuring universal access reaching the intended recipients. Affordability Eto WASH services. of services (including tariffs, but not limited to tariffs) must be carefully monitored. Targeting While the world is making progress towards its the unserved, progressively eliminating ambitions for SDG 6.1 and 6.2 targets in urban areas, inequalities and maintaining existing services there are deep disparities in access across regions should take precedence over improving and countries, which might affect achievement of these targets. The goal of universal basic WASH services for the already served. Ensuring a services in urban areas by 2030 will not be achieved minimum basic level of access to services without elimination of the inequalities that persist in is a powerful and effective tool to eliminate urban WASH service delivery. inequalities.

Now, perhaps more than ever, achieving water and Improved understanding of WASH sanitation services for all, everywhere and forever, expenditure in urban areas is required beyond requires prioritization and fast-tracking of actions for what national expenditure surveys show us. the poorest and most marginalized people in urban This includes the willingness and ability of poor settings. Some concrete actions that could be taken households to pay for different WASH options, for eliminating inequalities in urban WASH services and the determinants of demand. This could be include the following24; achieved by conducting small area surveys on WASH access and expenditures in low-income Strengthen WASH sector policy/strategy to neighbourhoods, and repeat surveys in households make sure that WASH needs of the vulnerable (panel data or expenditure diaries) to understand and marginalized urban populations are seasonal variations and demand factors. incorporated and prioritized. There is a need for greater policy attention to address the high Strengthen planning, monitoring and costs of poor urban households accessing review systems to prioritize the WASH needs higher WASH service levels, such as subsidized of the most marginalized urban populations. connections to enable poor households to shift This requires strengthening WASH systems to piped water supply and thereby experience with adequate financial and human resources, lower unit costs and better-quality water. as well as monitoring systems that can identify Eliminating inequalities will require addressing inequalities, track progress towards universal all forms of marginalization including availability, coverage and allow governments to take accessibility and affordability of WASH services corrective action. Systems must be put in place in urban areas. to allow community participation and citizen engagement to ensure populations at risk of Strong institutional arrangements with being left behind are included in programme specific responsibilities for holding duty-bearers planning, monitoring and review. Monitoring accountable for delivery of WASH services for and review of sector performance must include the most marginalized populations. Transparency identification and monitoring of access to of governments and all other duty-bearers, WASH, and the actions that the sector (including particularly pertaining to planning and budgeting service providers) take to ensure that everyone for elimination of inequalities, and accountability in urban areas is able to access affordable and of all actors to adhere to plans and budgets is safe WASH services. WASH data must be essential for ensuring that no one is left behind. disaggregated according to identified inequalities, including gender, disability, age, specific ethnic Targeted sector financing for programmes or indigenous groups, geographic location and and projects that prioritize extension of WASH poverty.

58 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Enhanced sector capacity to create ensuring that adequate taxes and tariffs are awareness on human rights and the elimination charged to those who can afford them, without of inequalities for all stakeholders, including political interference, and that those who community organizations, and ensure that cannot afford them benefit from some kind they are aware of their responsibilities to of support. Affordability of services (including achieve these. tariffs, but not limited to tariffs) must be carefully monitored and cross-subsidies put Sustainability of WASH services and in place for low-income households, where actions are required by ensuring that policies, necessary and appropriate. To reduce the institutions, financial planning and budgets are burden on public funds it is recommended to designed to operate and maintain services use cross-subsidies from richer households of all types. Only through full consideration or commercial customers. Transparency of costs beyond construction costs can and predictability in financing strategies are inequalities in access to WASH services essential to ensure that no one is left behind. in urban areas be eliminated. This includes © UNICEF/UN0274916/Panjwani

59 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

ENDNOTES

1 Unless indicated otherwise, all figures quoted in this report 15 MICS (2018). Sierra Leone Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey are from the latest JMP data sets and reports on household or 2017. Survey Finding Report. https://www.statistics.sl/images/ institutional WASH. Trend ranges are from the year 2000 to the StatisticsSL/Documents/sierra_leone_mics6_2017_report.pdf year 2017, which are the latest available data for household WASH coverage. The JMP’s main website is https://washdata.org/. 16 Yemen was classified as a fragile state even before the beginning of the current crisis in 2015. It is likely that the situation 2 The JMP uses WASH ‘service ladders’ to benchmark and is even worse now, although more recent data are not available. compare service levels across countries. See Annex 1 for more information on the WASH service ladders. 17 Republic of Yemen, Central Statistical Organization (1994). Yemen. Demographic and Maternal and Child Health Survey 3 A full listing of countries in regional and other groupings used for 1991/1992. https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR52/FR52.pdf; analysis in this report is given in Annex 2. Republic of Yemen, Ministry of Public Health and Population and Central Statistical Organization (2013). Yemen. National Health 4 UNICEF (2017). Strategic note on UNICEF’s work for children and Demographic Survey 2013. https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/ in urban settings. http://www.unicefinemergencies.com/ pdf/FR296/FR296.pdf. downloads/eresource/docs/urban/02.01-Strategic%20Note%20 on%20UNICEF%27s%20Work%20for%20Children%20in%20 18 WHO/UNICEF. Lebanon Water Quality Survey 2016. Urban%20Settings,%2022%20May%202017.pdf https://washdata.org/sites/default/files/documents/ reports/2019-06/Lebanon-water-quality-survey-2016.pdf. 5 United Nations Statistics Division. SDG 11: Sustainable cities and communities. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/goal-11/. 19 Republic of Paraguay (2016). Encuesta de Indicadores Multiples por Conglomorados: MICS Paraguay 2016. 6 UNICEF (2018). Advantage or Paradox? The challenge for https://mics-surveys-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/MICS5/ children and young people of growing up urban. Latin%20America%20and%20Caribbean/Paraguay/2016/Final/ https://data.unicef.org/resources/urban-paradox-report/. Paraguay%202016%20MICS_Spanish.pdf.

7 Ibid. 20 Sources: Ghana Living Standards Survey 6 (2014), Uganda National Panel Survey (UNPS) 2015/2016; Pakistan Household 8 UNICEF (2019). Global Framework for Urban Water, Sanitation Integrated Economic Survey (HIES) 2015-16; Mexico National and Hygiene, UNICEF, New York. Survey of Income and Expenses of Homes 2016 (ENIGH). https://www.unicef.org/documents/global-framework-urban- water-sanitation-and-hygiene. 21 World Health Organization & UNICEF (JMP) (2019). Progress on household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene 2000-2017: 9 World Health Organization & UNICEF (JMP) (2019). Progress Special focus on inequalities. https://washdata.org/sites/default/ on household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene 2000-2017: files/documents/reports/2019-06/jmp-2019-report-launch.pdf. Special focus on inequalities. https://washdata.org/sites/default/ files/documents/reports/2019-06/jmp-2019-report-launch.pdf. 22 Hutton, G., & Chase, C. (2016). The knowledge base for achieving the sustainable development goal targets on 10 The only SDG region with no country falling behind on urban water supply, sanitation and hygiene. International Journal of basic water services was the Australia and New Zealand region. Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(6), 536. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13060536 11 Data are unavailable for the Australia and New Zealand SDG region. 23 Includes only those countries for which urban data disaggregated by household wealth quintile are available (water 12 There are not enough countries with data on which to do a and sanitation only). similar analysis for hygiene. 24 Include end note 24: Sanitation and Water for All (2018). 13 These country examples are for random illustrative purposes SWA briefing series – Leaving no one behind. only. Similar analysis could be made for other countries. https://www.sanitationandwaterforall.org/sites/default/ files/2020-02/SWA%20Briefing%20Papers%201%20-%20 14 Central Statistical Agency Ethiopia & ICF (2016). Ethiopia Leaving%20No%20One%20Behind.pdf Demographic and Health Survey 2016. https://www.unicef.org/ ethiopia/reports/demographic-and-health-survey.

60 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

ANNEX 1 WASH SERVICE LADDERS

The JMP service ladders for household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene

DRINKING WATER SANITATION

SERVICE LEVEL DEFINITION SERVICE LEVEL DEFINITION

Drinking water from an improved water source that is Use of improved facilities that are not shared with other SAFELY MANAGED located on premises, available when needed and free SAFELY MANAGED households and where excreta are safely disposed of in from faecal and priority chemical contamination situ or transported and treated offsite

Drinking water from an improved source, provided Use of improved facilities that are not shared with other collection time is not more than 30 minutes for a round BASIC BASIC households trip, including queuing

Drinking water from an improved source for which Use of improved facilities shared between two or more collection time exceeds 30 minutes for a round trip, LIMITED LIMITED households including queuing

Drinking water from an unprotected dug well or Use of pit latrines without a slab or platform, hanging UNIMPROVED unprotected spring UNIMPROVED latrines or bucket latrines

Disposal of human faeces in fields, forests, bushes, Drinking water directly from a river, dam, lake, pond, open bodies of water, beaches or other open spaces, SURFACE WATER stream, canal or irrigation canal OPEN DEFECATION or with solid waste

Note: Improved sources include: piped water, boreholes or tubewells, protected Note: Improved facilities include flush/pour flush to piped sewer systems, septic dug wells, protected springs, and packaged or delivered water. tanks or pit latrines; ventilated improved pit latrines, composting toilets or pit latrines with slabs.

HYGIENE

SERVICE LEVEL DEFINITION

Availability of a handwashing facility on premises with BASIC soap and water

Availability of a handwashing facility on premises LIMITED without soap and water

NO FACILITY No handwashing facility on premises

Note: Handwashing facilities may be fixed or mobile and include a sink with tap water, buckets with taps, tippy-taps, and jugs or basins designated for handwashing. Soap includes bar soap, liquid soap, powder detergent, and soapy water but does not include ash, soil, sand or other handwashing agents.

61 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Both the water and sanitation Improved water sources are those that have the potential to deliver safe water by nature of service levels employ the concept their design and construction. These include piped of ‘improved’ sources and facilities, supplies (such as households with tap water in their the definition of which has been dwelling, yard or plot; or public stand posts) and non- piped supplies (such as boreholes, protected wells updated for the SDG period. and springs, rainwater and packaged or delivered water)

Improved sanitation facilities are those designed to hygienically separate excreta from human contact. These include wet sanitation technologies (flush and pour flush toilets connecting to sewers, septic tanks or pit latrines) and dry sanitation technologies (ventilated improved pit latrines; pit latrines with slabs; or composting toilets). Improved facilities shared with other households have previously been reported separately and did not count towards the MDG target

62 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

ANNEX 2 REGIONAL GROUPINGS

Jamaica, Martinique, Mexico, Montserrat, Nicaragua, Sustainable Development Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Goals Regional Groupings Sint Maarten (Dutch part), Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, United States AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND: Australia, Virgin Islands, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian New Zealand. Republic of).

CENTRAL ASIA AND SOUTHERN ASIA: Afghanistan, NORTHERN AFRICA AND WESTERN ASIA: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Georgia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Lanka, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, EASTERN ASIA AND SOUTH-EASTERN ASIA: West Bank and Gaza Strip, Western Sahara, Yemen. Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, China (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region), China (Macao OCEANIA EXCLUDING AUSTRALIA AND NEW Special Administrative Region), Democratic People’s ZEALAND: American Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji, Republic of Korea, Indonesia, Japan, Lao People’s French Polynesia, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Mongolia, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, New the Philippines, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Caledonia, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Viet Nam. Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna Islands. EUROPE AND NORTHERN AMERICA: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Herzegovina, Bermuda, Bulgaria, Canada, Channel Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Islands, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Greece, Greenland, Holy See, Hungary, Ireland, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Iceland, Isle of Man, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mayotte, Mozambique, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Réunion, Rwanda, Saint Federation, San Marino, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Helena, São Tomé and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain Togo, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Zimbabwe.

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN: Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bonaire Sint Eustatius and Saba (Caribbean Netherlands), Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Curaçao, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras,

63 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

Other regional groupings

LEAST-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LDCs): Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, São Tomé and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia.

LANDLOCKED DEVELOPING COUNTRIES (LLDCs): Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mongolia, Nepal, Niger, North Macedonia, Paraguay, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, South Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES (SIDS): American Samoa, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Bonaire Sint Eustatius and Saba (Caribbean Netherlands), British Virgin Islands, Cabo Verde, Cayman Islands, Comoros, Cook Islands, Cuba, Curaçao, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Fiji, French Polynesia, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Guam, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Kiribati, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Montserrat, Nauru, New Caledonia, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Puerto Rico, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, São Tomé and Principe, Seychelles, Singapore, Sint Maarten (Dutch part), Solomon Islands, Suriname, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, Tuvalu, United States Virgin Islands, Vanuatu.

64 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

ANNEX 3 STATISTICAL TABLES – INEQUALITIES IN BASIC WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE SERVICES

INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES DRINKING WATER SANITATION HYGIENE DRINKING WATER SANITATION HYGIENE

Countries, areas and territories (more than 30 mins) than 30 (more or soap) (without water mins) than 30 (more or soap) (without water Wealth quintile Wealth Year least basic At Limited Unimproved Surface water least basic At (shared) Limited Unimproved Open defecation Basic Limited facility No Year least basic At Limited Unimproved Surface water least basic At (shared) Limited Unimproved Open defecation Basic Limited facility No

Urban poorest 57 3 26 14 30 13 52 5 - - - 78 4 15 3 45 20 32 4 43 37 21 Afghanistan 2005 2017 Urban richest 97 <1 2 <1 67 20 13 <1 - - - 96 <1 3 <1 73 22 6 <1 82 11 6 Urban poorest 98 1 <1 <1 95 3 2 <1 - - - 97 1 2 <1 95 3 2 <1 - - - Albania 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - 99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - Urban poorest 57 10 14 18 18 17 36 29 - - - 57 10 18 15 36 34 13 17 17 16 67 Angola 2000 2017 Urban richest 86 4 7 3 77 6 13 5 - - - 94 5 <1 <1 93 7 <1 <1 64 8 28 Urban poorest 99 <1 <1 <1 92 2 5 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 96 2 1 <1 95 4 1 Armenia 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 Urban poorest 97 1 <1 2 13 12 61 14 - - - 97 1 <1 1 36 33 31 <1 5 76 20 Bangladesh 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 92 5 3 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 83 5 12 <1 89 9 3 Urban poorest 99 <1 1 <1 90 8 2 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 90 8 3 <1 - - - Belarus 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 96 4 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 96 4 <1 <1 - - - Urban poorest 97 <1 3 <1 74 14 9 3 - - - 99 <1 <1 <1 77 14 7 2 75 22 3 Belize 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 99 1 <1 <1 - - - 97 <1 3 <1 99 1 <1 <1 96 4 <1 Urban poorest 41 5 34 20 2 5 4 89 - - - 58 7 26 9 3 7 7 82 6 15 80 Benin 2000 2017 Urban richest 99 <1 1 <1 67 30 3 <1 - - - 94 <1 5 <1 63 28 7 1 37 7 57

Bolivia Urban poorest 78 <1 19 3 17 15 18 50 - - - 98 <1 2 <1 37 33 16 14 14 34 52 2000 2017 (Plurinational State of) Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 89 5 6 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 93 5 1 <1 42 6 52 Urban poorest 96 <1 3 <1 97 <1 2 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 98 <1 <1 <1 - - - Bosnia and Herzegovina 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - 99 <1 1 <1 99 <1 1 <1 - - <1 Urban poorest 75 21 3 <1 35 27 18 19 - - - 59 17 23 <1 36 28 3 33 - - - Burkina Faso 2000 2017 Urban richest 97 3 <1 <1 70 28 1 <1 - - - 97 3 <1 <1 71 29 <1 <1 - - - Urban poorest 38 9 25 28 18 25 54 3 - - - 80 19 <1 <1 24 33 40 3 2 97 1 Burundi 2000 2017 Urban richest 97 2 <1 <1 88 12 <1 <1 - - - 98 2 <1 <1 88 12 <1 <1 62 38 <1 Urban poorest 60 <1 18 22 <1 <1 <1 >99 - - - 99 <1 <1 <1 60 28 1 10 67 16 17 Cambodia 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - 99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 Urban poorest 54 11 26 9 36 18 43 3 - - - 70 14 11 5 30 15 48 7 6 6 88 Cameroon 2000 2017 Urban richest 94 3 3 <1 83 14 3 <1 - - - 96 3 <1 <1 85 14 <1 <1 43 3 53

65 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES DRINKING WATER SANITATION HYGIENE DRINKING WATER SANITATION HYGIENE

Urban poorest 65 15 19 2 6 6 75 13 - - - 55 12 31 2 8 7 58 27 - - - Central African Republic 2000 2017 Urban richest 83 13 3 <1 50 17 32 <1 - - - 84 13 3 <1 75 25 <1 <1 - - - Urban poorest 58 12 26 4 13 14 38 36 - - - 55 11 29 4 4 4 33 59 <1 16 93 Chad 2000 2017 Urban richest 82 2 10 5 45 24 28 3 - - - 97 3 <1 <1 62 32 6 <1 33 17 51 Urban poorest 97 <1 2 <1 60 25 8 7 - - - 96 <1 3 <1 65 27 3 4 - - - Colombia 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 97 3 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 97 3 <1 <1 - - - Urban poorest 66 6 27 <1 5 1 93 <1 - - - 86 8 5 <1 31 10 59 <1 - - - Comoros 2000 2017 Urban richest 96 <1 3 <1 78 8 14 <1 - - - 98 <1 <1 <1 68 7 26 <1 - - - Urban poorest 73 14 13 <1 12 18 61 9 - - - 81 16 3 <1 18 29 50 2 39 45 16 Congo 2000 2017 Urban richest 85 12 3 <1 47 27 25 1 - - - 87 12 <1 <1 60 35 5 <1 71 19 10 Urban poorest 73 4 15 8 13 24 23 40 - - - 79 4 17 <1 18 34 41 7 9 33 58 Côte d'Ivoire 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 83 10 7 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 87 10 3 <1 59 17 24

Democratic Republic of Urban poorest 45 23 26 6 26 19 47 7 - - - 37 19 38 6 20 15 56 10 2 11 87 2000 2017 the Congo Urban richest 95 3 2 <1 33 47 20 <1 - - - 96 3 <1 <1 33 48 18 <1 18 13 69 Urban poorest 92 2 6 <1 58 27 9 6 - - - 95 2 3 <1 61 29 5 6 29 20 51 Dominican Republic 2000 2017 Urban richest 97 <1 2 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - 98 <1 1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 84 9 8 Urban poorest >99 <1 <1 <1 95 4 <1 1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 96 4 <1 <1 97 22 <1 Egypt 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 5 <1 Urban poorest 80 2 9 9 17 61 14 8 - - - 81 2 7 10 19 66 13 2 27 42 31 Eswatini 2000 2017 Urban richest 95 <1 2 2 87 13 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 85 13 2 <1 76 16 8 Urban poorest 48 15 20 17 6 9 36 49 - - - 72 22 6 <1 9 12 56 23 7 66 27 Ethiopia 2000 2017 Urban richest 99 1 <1 <1 50 35 11 4 - - - 99 1 <1 <1 52 36 12 <1 52 51 <1 Urban poorest 62 19 11 9 16 41 39 4 - - - 73 22 4 1 12 31 52 5 - - - Gabon 2000 2017 Urban richest 97 2 <1 <1 89 8 3 <1 - - - 95 2 2 <1 88 8 4 <1 - - - Urban poorest 78 8 14 <1 33 49 14 3 - - - 80 9 11 <1 25 37 37 <1 2 19 80 Gambia 2000 2017 Urban richest 96 <1 3 <1 90 10 <1 <1 - - - 99 <1 <1 <1 86 10 5 <1 37 15 48 Urban poorest 97 <1 2 <1 92 4 3 <1 - - - 99 <1 <1 <1 87 4 9 <1 - - - Georgia 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - Urban poorest 74 6 14 7 11 55 16 18 - - - 85 6 5 4 11 52 13 24 16 27 57 Ghana 2000 2017 Urban richest 99 1 <1 <1 58 36 6 1 - - - 95 1 4 <1 59 37 3 <1 49 21 30 Urban poorest 95 <1 3 1 64 7 23 5 - - - 93 <1 6 1 62 7 23 8 36 13 1 Guatemala 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 97 3 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 96 3 1 <1 47 2 2 Urban poorest 62 9 23 6 11 12 69 8 - - - 84 12 4 <1 37 42 21 <1 14 26 61 Guinea 2000 2017 Urban richest 93 4 4 <1 61 17 21 <1 - - - 96 4 <1 <1 78 22 <1 <1 41 18 41 Urban poorest 48 4 46 2 16 18 51 15 - - - 76 6 18 <1 22 25 49 5 6 11 97 Guinea-Bissau 2000 2017 Urban richest 87 4 8 <1 51 18 30 <1 - - - 92 4 5 <1 72 25 4 <1 26 9 80 Urban poorest 98 <1 1 <1 67 14 18 1 - - - 97 <1 2 <1 78 16 6 <1 57 18 24 Guyana 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 97 2 1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 98 2 <1 <1 96 1 3 Urban poorest 75 10 11 4 7 15 51 27 - - - 78 11 11 <1 17 36 18 28 15 64 21 Haiti 2000 2017 Urban richest 97 3 <1 <1 60 12 27 <1 - - - 96 3 1 <1 83 17 <1 <1 50 44 6 Urban poorest 89 <1 11 <1 49 15 18 18 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 63 20 14 4 - - - Honduras 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 96 3 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 95 3 2 <1 - - - Urban poorest 89 4 7 <1 18 18 7 56 - - - 92 4 3 <1 30 30 5 35 53 43 4 India 2000 2017 Urban richest 98 <1 1 <1 91 4 5 <1 - - - 99 <1 <1 <1 94 4 2 <1 95 3 1 Urban poorest 72 <1 25 2 46 15 14 24 - - - 91 <1 7 1 59 19 7 15 - - - Indonesia 2000 2017 Urban richest 92 <1 8 <1 94 <1 5 <1 - - - 99 <1 <1 <1 98 <1 <1 <1 - - - Urban poorest 96 <1 3 <1 87 11 2 <1 - - - 99 <1 <1 <1 85 10 4 <1 - - - Iraq 2000 2017 Urban richest 96 <1 4 <1 94 6 <1 <1 - - - 99 <1 1 <1 93 6 2 <1 - - <1 Urban poorest 94 <1 5 <1 65 30 1 3 - - - 95 <1 4 <1 64 30 3 3 - - - Jamaica 2000 2017 Urban richest 99 <1 1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - 98 <1 2 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - -

66 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES DRINKING WATER SANITATION HYGIENE DRINKING WATER SANITATION HYGIENE

Urban poorest >99 <1 <1 <1 97 2 1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 98 2 <1 <1 - - - Jordan 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 98 2 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 98 2 <1 <1 - - - Urban poorest 97 2 1 <1 92 7 <1 <1 - - - 98 2 <1 <1 93 7 <1 <1 97 3 <1 Kazakhstan 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 Urban poorest 86 8 5 1 14 35 43 8 - - - 61 5 14 20 13 34 42 11 12 17 71 Kenya 2000 2017 Urban richest 98 2 <1 <1 82 16 2 <1 - - - 96 2 1 <1 80 15 4 <1 56 14 30 Urban poorest 94 1 3 1 89 7 4 <1 - - - 86 1 3 10 93 7 <1 <1 87 10 3 Kyrgyzstan 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 99 1 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 98 1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1

Lao People's Democratic Urban poorest 55 <1 41 4 34 4 7 55 - - - 83 <1 14 3 68 8 4 20 - - - 2000 2017 Republic Urban richest 88 <1 11 1 90 1 3 6 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 99 1 <1 <1 - - - Urban poorest 82 7 11 <1 11 16 52 20 - - - 79 6 15 <1 32 45 8 15 <1 6 94 Lesotho 2000 2017 Urban richest 94 2 4 <1 64 21 14 1 - - - 98 2 <1 <1 72 24 4 <1 23 6 71 Urban poorest 79 8 13 <1 5 25 30 39 - - - 73 8 13 6 4 19 20 57 <1 <1 99 Liberia 2005 2017 Urban richest 86 6 8 <1 57 17 18 8 - - - 91 6 3 <1 74 22 4 <1 7 4 89 Urban poorest 29 2 49 20 <1 2 51 47 - - - 65 6 24 6 2 10 33 55 - - - Madagascar 2000 2017 Urban richest 96 1 3 <1 28 16 56 <1 - - - 96 1 3 <1 43 25 28 3 - - - Urban poorest 66 13 17 4 18 19 51 12 - - - 78 15 7 <1 21 21 53 5 <1 49 45 Malawi 2000 2017 Urban richest 96 3 <1 <1 77 13 10 <1 - - - 97 3 <1 <1 73 12 14 <1 44 36 25 Urban poorest 60 1 35 4 31 17 40 12 - - - 85 2 13 <1 38 20 40 1 11 36 54 Mali 2000 2017 Urban richest 95 2 3 <1 68 25 6 <1 - - - 98 2 <1 <1 71 26 2 <1 34 32 34 Urban poorest 57 17 22 3 15 8 32 45 - - - 74 22 4 <1 27 15 21 37 22 48 30 Mauritania 2000 2017 Urban richest 83 12 1 4 87 8 4 <1 - - - 87 13 <1 <1 87 8 4 <1 46 45 9 Urban poorest 98 <1 1 <1 82 12 1 5 - - - 99 <1 <1 <1 83 12 1 3 83 13 4 Mexico 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 96 3 <1 Urban poorest 80 11 4 5 50 41 6 2 - - - 81 11 3 5 51 42 3 4 60 10 29 Mongolia 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 98 2 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 98 2 <1 <1 98 <1 2 Urban poorest 99 1 <1 <1 97 3 <1 <1 - - - 99 1 <1 <1 91 3 6 <1 - - - Montenegro 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - Urban poorest 22 6 60 12 14 5 32 49 - - - 55 14 23 7 15 5 55 25 - - - Mozambique 2000 2017 Urban richest 93 1 6 <1 60 6 33 <1 - - - 98 2 <1 <1 91 9 <1 <1 - - - Urban poorest 89 4 7 <1 14 22 20 44 - - - 91 4 4 1 11 16 7 66 41 44 16 Namibia 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 94 6 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 93 6 1 <1 81 13 7 Urban poorest 87 2 10 2 17 7 14 63 - - - 89 2 4 4 56 21 1 22 40 59 <1 Nepal 2000 2017 Urban richest 93 1 6 <1 86 14 <1 <1 - - - 99 1 <1 <1 86 14 <1 <1 92 7 <1 Urban poorest 89 <1 10 1 45 5 39 11 - - - 94 <1 4 1 64 7 22 6 - - - Nicaragua 2000 2017 Urban richest 99 <1 1 <1 92 2 5 <1 - - - 99 <1 1 <1 95 3 2 <1 - - - Urban poorest 65 16 18 <1 13 18 9 60 - - - 76 19 5 <1 20 27 15 37 - - - Niger 2000 2017 Urban richest 94 2 3 <1 67 29 3 <1 - - - 97 2 <1 <1 67 30 3 <1 - - - Urban poorest 44 8 29 19 20 8 46 26 - - - 69 12 14 5 38 16 23 23 9 73 17 Nigeria 2000 2017 Urban richest 88 4 7 <1 64 28 6 2 - - - 96 4 <1 <1 68 30 1 <1 46 49 5 Urban poorest 97 2 <1 <1 87 5 8 <1 - - - 98 2 <1 <1 95 5 <1 <1 - - - North Macedonia 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 98 <1 2 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - Urban poorest 94 3 2 <1 22 4 12 62 - - - 95 3 2 <1 70 14 14 <1 61 34 4 Pakistan 2000 2017 Urban richest 95 3 <1 1 94 3 3 <1 - - - 96 3 <1 <1 95 3 2 <1 94 3 3 Urban poorest 73 <1 27 <1 65 7 26 1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 84 9 7 <1 64 33 3 Paraguay 2000 2017 Urban richest 99 <1 1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - 99 <1 1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 93 3 4 Urban poorest 80 2 16 2 45 9 24 22 - - - 86 2 11 <1 64 13 13 10 - - - Peru 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 97 2 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 98 2 <1 <1 - - - Urban poorest 91 2 6 <1 45 29 8 18 - - - 91 2 7 <1 50 32 6 12 60 33 7 Philippines 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 96 4 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 96 4 <1 <1 97 1 2

67 Snapshot of global and regional urban water, sanitation and hygiene inequalities

INEQUALITIES IN BASIC SERVICES DRINKING WATER SANITATION HYGIENE DRINKING WATER SANITATION HYGIENE

Urban poorest 95 2 4 <1 60 12 28 <1 - - - 87 2 11 <1 73 14 13 <1 - - - Republic of Moldova 2000 2017 Urban richest 99 <1 <1 <1 96 4 <1 <1 - - - 99 <1 <1 <1 96 4 <1 <1 - - - Urban poorest 57 19 14 10 35 12 49 4 - - - 59 20 14 8 53 18 26 2 <1 13 86 Rwanda 2000 2017 Urban richest 92 4 3 <1 77 22 <1 <1 - - - 95 4 <1 <1 77 22 1 <1 36 5 59 Urban poorest 91 <1 9 <1 43 17 5 35 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 61 24 3 11 - - - Saint Lucia 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 98 2 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 98 2 <1 <1 - - - Urban poorest 71 15 6 8 3 <1 <1 96 - - - 81 17 <1 1 18 4 2 76 17 17 66 Sao Tome and Principe 2000 2017 Urban richest 88 8 3 <1 74 5 2 19 - - - 92 8 <1 <1 86 6 <1 7 68 8 24 Urban poorest 74 3 22 <1 41 16 31 13 - - - 72 3 24 <1 46 18 29 7 <1 17 85 Senegal 2000 2017 Urban richest 98 <1 2 <1 87 10 3 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 90 10 <1 <1 53 19 28 Urban poorest 99 <1 <1 <1 97 2 <1 <1 - - - 99 <1 <1 <1 95 2 2 <1 - - - Serbia 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - Urban poorest 46 5 22 27 2 9 70 18 - - - 67 8 14 11 10 45 24 21 1 31 68 Sierra Leone 2000 2017 Urban richest 73 10 11 5 37 33 28 1 - - - 87 12 <1 <1 52 46 2 <1 27 37 36 Urban poorest 40 7 40 13 25 27 16 33 - - - 82 15 2 <1 36 39 25 <1 - - - Somalia 2000 2017 Urban richest 92 6 2 <1 49 31 21 <1 - - - 93 6 1 <1 59 37 2 1 - - - Urban poorest 75 12 13 <1 18 8 46 29 - - - 81 13 7 <1 15 6 64 15 11 14 75 Sudan 2005 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 79 12 9 <1 - - - 98 <1 1 <1 87 13 <1 <1 71 14 15 Urban poorest 92 <1 7 <1 72 21 6 <1 - - - 98 <1 <1 <1 70 21 8 <1 - - - Suriname 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 97 3 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 97 3 <1 <1 - - - Urban poorest 84 2 4 10 83 4 12 <1 - - - 92 3 2 3 95 5 <1 <1 79 19 2 Tajikistan 2000 2017 Urban richest 97 <1 <1 <1 97 1 1 <1 - - - 97 <1 2 <1 99 1 <1 <1 95 5 <1 Urban poorest 99 <1 1 <1 92 7 <1 <1 - - - 98 <1 <1 1 92 7 <1 <1 75 16 9 Thailand 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 87 2 11 Urban poorest 63 4 29 5 6 21 11 62 - - - 73 4 14 8 10 39 13 38 - - - Togo 2000 2017 Urban richest 93 1 6 <1 68 28 1 2 - - - 96 1 3 <1 67 28 4 <1 - - - Urban poorest 49 2 30 19 23 10 61 5 - - - 78 4 15 3 45 20 32 4 - - - Trinidad and Tobago 2000 2017 Urban richest 97 <1 2 <1 65 19 15 <1 - - - 96 <1 3 <1 73 22 6 <1 - - - Urban poorest >99 <1 <1 <1 83 5 10 1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 94 6 <1 <1 - - - Tunisia 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 97 <1 3 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - <1 - Urban poorest 98 <1 <1 <1 88 3 9 <1 - - - 98 <1 <1 <1 97 3 <1 <1 - - - Turkey 2000 2017 Urban richest 99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - Urban poorest >99 <1 <1 <1 95 4 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 96 4 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 Turkmenistan 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 99 1 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 99 1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 Urban poorest 59 29 4 8 16 22 56 6 - - - 53 26 17 4 12 17 64 6 2 47 51 Uganda 2000 2017 Urban richest 91 4 5 <1 51 37 12 <1 - - - 95 4 <1 <1 57 42 2 <1 37 38 25 Urban poorest 94 <1 6 <1 88 4 8 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 96 4 <1 <1 - - - Ukraine 2000 2017 Urban richest 96 1 2 <1 99 <1 <1 <1 - - - 99 1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - -

United Republic of Urban poorest 50 10 27 14 <1 <1 93 7 - - - 66 13 17 4 31 18 45 6 1 79 19 2000 2017 Tanzania Urban richest 92 3 4 <1 49 18 33 <1 - - - 95 3 1 <1 71 25 4 <1 30 64 6 Urban poorest 99 <1 1 <1 95 5 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 88 4 4 3 - - - Uruguay 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 98 2 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 98 2 <1 <1 - - - Urban poorest 91 <1 4 4 49 6 27 18 - - - 96 <1 4 <1 68 8 17 7 80 17 3 Viet Nam 2000 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 98 2 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 98 2 <1 <1 98 1 <1 Urban poorest 95 <1 4 <1 91 6 2 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 94 6 <1 <1 - - - West Bank and Gaza Strip 2005 2017 Urban richest >99 <1 <1 <1 97 3 <1 <1 - - - >99 <1 <1 <1 96 3 <1 <1 - - - Urban poorest 91 4 6 <1 79 2 17 2 - - - 95 4 1 <1 71 2 19 8 57 26 18 Yemen 2000 2017 Urban richest 99 1 <1 <1 >99 <1 <1 <1 - - - 98 1 <1 <1 99 <1 <1 <1 82 15 3 Urban poorest 73 6 16 4 13 14 62 10 - - - 67 6 24 3 18 21 58 3 8 30 62 Zambia 2000 2017 Urban richest 95 <1 4 <1 85 14 <1 <1 - - - 98 <1 <1 <1 83 14 3 <1 61 23 17 Urban poorest 92 4 4 <1 37 55 6 2 - - - 89 4 6 1 35 52 9 4 21 58 21 Zimbabwe 2000 2017 Urban richest 98 2 <1 <1 80 20 <1 <1 - - - 97 2 1 <1 78 20 2 <1 63 31 7 68 © UNICEF/UN0158149 Published by UNICEF WASH Section, Programme Division 3 United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017, USA