Water access and sanitation
The global picture, the service ladder that defines it, and why "access to improved water" and "safely managed water" describe very different situations.
Global water access statistics changed meaning in 2015. The Millennium Development Goals measured "improved source" — essentially, is it a pipe or a protected well rather than a river. The Sustainable Development Goals measure "safely managed", which is far stricter, and headline figures fell sharply as a result.
The service ladder
| Service level | Definition |
|---|---|
| Safely managed | An improved source, on premises, available when needed, and free from faecal and priority chemical contamination — all three conditions simultaneously |
| Basic | An improved source within a 30-minute round trip including queuing |
| Limited | An improved source more than 30 minutes away |
| Unimproved | An unprotected well or spring |
| Surface water | Directly from a river, lake, pond or irrigation canal |
The sanitation ladder is structured equivalently, from safely managed through basic, limited and unimproved to open defecation.
The three conditions for "safely managed" are demanding. A household with a tap in the yard that runs three days a week does not qualify. Nor does one with continuous piped supply that is contaminated. This is why countries with near-universal "basic" service can score much lower on "safely managed".
This is the strictest rung of the JMP service ladder and requires all three criteria simultaneously. It is much more demanding than "improved source", and countries can score far lower on it than headline access statistics suggest.
View the data behind this chart
Modelled estimates, not measured counts. The definition requires excreta to be safely disposed of in situ or treated off site, which is far stricter than having a toilet.
View the data behind this chart
| Subject | Value (%) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Greenland | 0.0 | — |
| Ethiopia | 8.1 | — |
| Morocco | 8.4 | — |
| Niger | 9.1 | — |
| Armenia | 10.7 | — |
| Chad | 11.1 | — |
| North Macedonia | 12.1 | — |
| Madagascar | 12.8 | — |
| Togo | 13.0 | — |
| Democratic Republic of the Congo | 13.1 | — |
| Central African Republic | 13.5 | — |
| Benin | 16.4 | — |
| Somalia | 16.4 | — |
| Papua New Guinea | 16.7 | — |
| Sierra Leone | 16.8 | — |
| Colombia | 18.7 | — |
| Ghana | 18.8 | — |
| Mali | 20.0 | — |
| Uganda | 20.4 | — |
| Libya | 21.7 | — |
Why sanitation lags
Sanitation coverage is consistently lower than drinking water coverage everywhere, and improves more slowly. The reasons are structural: water supply produces something people will pay for and sanitation produces a service whose benefit is largely external to the household; water can be delivered incrementally while sanitation requires collection and treatment as a system; and sanitation attracts less political attention.
The consequence is that treating water access as the measure of progress overstates it. Contaminated water is very often contaminated because sanitation upstream is inadequate.
Sources
- WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene — JMP global database. Public but restricted · CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO
- UN-Water — SDG 6 Data Portal. Public but restricted · CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO
- World Bank — World Development Indicators. Open — attribution required · CC BY 4.0