a snapshot of sanitation and hygiene in e asia and the …

A SNAPSHOT OF SANITATION AND HYGIENE IN EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC 2015 REGIONAL ANALYSIS AND UPDATE

2015 UPDATE

A Snapshot of Sanitation and Hygiene in East Asia and the Pacific – 2015 Update 2

Overview

The East Asia and Pacific Region has made gains over the last 25 years:

Use of improved sanitation increased by 27 percentage points between 1990 and 2015, almost than double the rate of increase of the world as a whole

770 million more people in the region use improved sanitation in 2015 than in 1990, the majority of them in China, which has made very good progress

Four % of the regional population, or 83 million people, practice open defecation

However, significant challenges remain:

Seven countries in the region made limited or moderate progress and did not meet the MDG sanitation target

Five countries are still below 50% coverage levels (Cambodia, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste)

519 million people are still without access to improved sanitation

Progress in the Pacific sub-region is stagnant: the proportion of people using improved sanitation has increased by just 2% in 25 years

Outside of China, open defecation rates in the region are still high at 10%

Coverage disparities are pronounced in the region, with improved sanitation coverage ranging from less than 40% of the population in some countries (Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands) to more than 90% in 9 countries (e.g., Fiji, Malaysia, Thailand and Tonga)

Coverage is also highly inequitable within countries: richer households and urban dwellers are much more likely to use improved sanitation than poorer and rural households

Handwashing with soap rates are lower in rural areas and much lower in poor households in some countries

A new global analysis of access to sanitation in schools shows that the East Asia and Pacific region lags behind global averages, and that progress is slow

Information about this Snapshot

This snapshot is produced by the UNICEF Regional Office for East Asia and the Pacific

Unless otherwise indicated, data in this snapshot is from the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation 2015 dataset, the latest available (see page 13 for full citations and credits)

The UNICEF East Asia and Pacific Region encompasses 27 countries; 12 in East Asia and 15 in the Pacific (*UNICEF regions differ slightly from JMP and MDG regions: see last page for listing)

Regional and World Sanitation Coverage Trends

East Asia and the Pacific

World Total


Progress and Challenges

Six countries have significant open defecation problems

Seven countries made only limited or moderate progress on the MDG target

Sanitation MDG Gap in Countries with Limited or Moderate Progress

Proportion of population practicing open defecation, 2015 and 2010, in the six EAP countries still above the Developing World average of 16%

Gap between 2015 coverage and sanitation target. Note that other countries missed the target but made good progress, including Cambodia, Philippines and Vanuatu.

Sanitation coverage varies significantly from country to country

Improved sanitation coverage in East Asia and Pacific countries, 2015, national, per cent, with Region and World comparators

Region


Sanitation Inequities

Urban-rural coverage gaps are shrinking in East Asia and the Pacific

Despite progress there continues to be substantial disparity in some countries

The rural-urban sanitation gap in the East Asia and Pacific Region has shrunk from 30 percentage points in 1990 (70% urban, 40% rural) to 22 points in 2015 (86% urban, 64% rural), smaller than the global gap of 31 points

Fiji, Indonesia, Palau, and the Philippines have made the best progress reducing the urban-rural sanitation gap; however, the gap has actually increased substantially in Cambodia, from 19 percentage points in 2000 to 58 in 2015

The gap in the Pacific sub-region is very high (50 percentage points) and has hardly improved since 1990 (51 points).

Urban Rural

Urban-rural disparity varies significantly, and has increased in some countries

Improved sanitation: urban-rural range in East Asia and the Pacific Countries, 2015 (in Thailand, urban coverage at 90% is lower than rural coverage at 96%) plus gap increase since 1990 (red = greater gap in 2015 than in 1990)

Urban-rural gap, 2015

Gap increase since 1990


Economic inequities are also significant in the region, with widening gaps

Disparities in improved sanitation coverage between rich and poor households in rural areas are pronounced in the region (see four examples below)

The gap between poorest and richest rural households is 70 per cent or more in some countries, including Indonesia and Lao PDR (shown below)

Of even greater concern is the fact that the gaps between the poorest and richest households are getting wider in some countries, including in Indonesia and PDR Lao, and in Viet Nam and Cambodia (not shown): in these countries not enough progress has been made increasing sanitation usage among the poorest households

Use of improved sanitation, rural, by household wealth quintile, per cent, in 1995 and 2012. Source: JMP analysis based on multiple MICS, DHS and other surveys, JMP Update Report 2015.


Regional and country averages mask large disparities within countries These equity tree examples from Cambodia and Philippines illustrate the levels and types

of disparities in sanitation, as compared to national, regional and global averages.

Use of Improved sanitation. Source: JMP 2015 (2012 estimates for wealth quintile data, 2015 for all other figures)

Cambodia A ‘tall’ equity tree, ranging from 5% to 100% coverage

Philippines A smaller gap between the richest and poorest


Child Faeces Disposal Practices

The safe disposal of child faeces is just as important as the disposal of adult faeces for the prevention of diarrhoea, however it is common in the region (and globally) for child faeces to be unsafely disposed of.

Most households do not dispose child faeces safely

In all regional countries with available data, child faeces are usually disposed of unsafely (left in the open, buried in the courtyard, or thrown in a ditch or drain) instead of safely (child uses toilet, or faeces disposed of in toilet/latrine).

Sanitation coverage is lower among children than the population at large: Philippines example

Only 16 percent of children under the age of three defecated or had their faeces put into an improved toilet or latrine, compared to 74 percent of the population at large using improved latrines/toilets.

Wealth quintile variation: Cambodia example

Richer households are much more likely to dispose of child faeces correctly, and not only because of the greater availability of toilets in these households (see below).

Availability of toilets is not the only factor: Indonesia example

As expected, households with improved sanitation facilities are more likely to dispose of child faeces correctly. However, even in households with improved toilets, child faeces are disposed of unsafely in many cases.

The proportion of children aged under three with safe feces disposal reported in MICS and DHS surveys. Source: Management of Child Feces: Current Disposal Practices, June 2015, WSP and UNICEF.


Handwashing with Soap and Water

Handwashing with soap varies by country but is always more common in urban areas

Handwashing with soap, per cent, using standardized MICS/DHS proxy indicator: Percentage of households where a place for handwashing was observed with soap and water. Source: latest DHS and MICS surveys.

Handwashing with soap disparities by household wealth varies from country to country

Handwashing with soap, per cent, using standardized MICS/DHS proxy indicator: Percentage of households where a place for handwashing was observed with soap and water. Source: latest DHS and MICS surveys.


Sub-Regional Analysis

Outside of China: Slower progress, High open defecation rates

China accounts for 68 per cent of the population of the East Asia and Pacific region, and thus trends in China have a significant impact on WASH averages in the region as a whole

When taken separately, certain key WASH indicators are quite different in the region outside of China than in China, notably in the area of rate of progress and open defecation

The proportion of people practicing open defecation in the region outside of China is 10 per cent, just under the world average of 13 per cent (most of whom are in Indonesia, which has the second largest number of open defecators in the world: 52 million)

Most new sanitation users since 1990 in the region are in China

Outside of China, open defecation levels in the region are high

Number of people who gained access to improved sanitation from 1990 to 2015, millions

Population practicing open defecation in EAP not including China and in China, % and millions, 2015

Pacific Sub-Region: Low coverage, Slow progress, Off-track

At 31 per cent, sanitation coverage in the Pacific sub-region (14 Small Island Nations and Papua New Guinea) is low, about the same as coverage in Sub Saharan Africa (30%)

The situation is not improving: coverage increased by just two per cent in the sub-region from 1990 to 2015

Sanitation coverage, percent, 2015 in the Pacific sub-region, the EAP region and the world


Sanitation in Schools

Sanitation in schools is a cause for concern Average sanitation coverage in

schools in the region is 8 percentage points lower than global averages

Trends are flat: sanitation coverage has increased by just 2% in five years (from 2008 to 2013)

There is significant disparity in coverage between and within countries

Average sanitation coverage in schools (61%) is actually lower than coverage in households (67%)

Evidence shows that poor school WASH coverage has a negative impact on education achievement, health outcomes and gender equality (see pg. 10 for sources on the evidence base for school WASH)

Regional coverage and progress lags behind the global average

Sanitation coverage in schools, average of 19 EAP countries vs. global average, 2008 and 2013.

School sanitation is inadequate in many countries in the region

Percentage of schools with sanitation facilities, national and 19 country region average (no data for 8 countries), 2013. Data may or may not take into account criteria such as the ratio of students to toilets available, privacy, gender segregation and functionality, depending on the country.

Source: figures on this page are from Advancing WASH in schools monitoring, 2015, UNICEF

59

6361

69

0

20

40

60

80

East Asia and Pacific Global

Ave

rage

San

itat

ion

Co

vera

ge (

%)

2008 2013

81

62

95

53

4

47

100

10

52

23

100 100

53

66

45

6460

69 72

61

0

20

40

60

80

100

Co

vera

ge (

%)


Sanitation Coverage in East Asia and the Pacific

Improved sanitation coverage in East Asia and Pacific countries, 2015, national. Only countries in the UNICEF East Asia and Pacific region are shown. This map does not reflect a position by UNICEF on the legal status of any country or territory or the delimitation of any frontiers.

Sources and Notes

This document is the 2015 annual update of the original 2012 snapshot.

Main sanitation dataset: from Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2015 Update (with supplemental data from wssinfo.org), from the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation

Country-specific DHS data: from published Demographic and Household Surveys available at measuredhs.com, from USAID and national statistics bureaus. Country-specific MICS data: from published Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys available at childinfo.org, from UNICEF, other UN agencies and national statistics bureaus

School data from: Advancing WASH in schools monitoring, 2015, UNICEF

For evidence on the benefits of WASH in Schools see:

Jasper C., Le T.-T., Bartram J. (2012). Water and Sanitation in Schools: A Systematic Review of the Health and Educational Outcomes . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 9(8):2772-2787.

UNICEF (2012). Raising even more clean hands: Advancing health, learning and equity through WASH in Schools. http://www.unicef.org/wash/schools/files/Raising_Even_More_Clean_Hands_Web_17_October_2012(1).pdf

Cover photo credits, clockwise from top left: © UNICEF/Chin 11/Za Lyan, UNICEF Viet Nam/2014/Truong Viet Hung, UNICEF/2012/Dean, UNICEF Philippines/2014/Gray

UNICEF does not warrant that the information contained in this publication is complete and correct and shall not be liable for any damages incurred as a result of its use.

Acknowledgements

UNICEF thanks Greg Keast, who developed and produced this snapshot under the guidance of Chander Badloe, UNICEF East Asia and the Pacific. Thanks also to the reviewers and contributors to the snapshot series: Almud Weitz from the Water and Sanitation Program; James Wicken from WaterAid; Hilda Winartasaputra from Plan International; and Robert Bain, Ramesh Bhusal, Therese Dooley, Nguyen Thanh Hien, Libbet Horn-Phathanothai, Dara Johnston, Janine Kandel, Rolf Luyendijk, Nadarajah Moorthy, Henk van Norden, Marjolein Oijevaar, Marc Overmars and David Parker from UNICEF.

UNICEF acknowledges the financial support from DFAT for making this 2015 update possible.


Sanitation Coverage Data Country estimates by type of sanitation practice, 1990, 2015

Source: Source: Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2015 Update (with supplemental data from wssinfo.org), from the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation

UNICEF East Asia and Pacific Regional Office (EAPRO) September 2015 19 Phra Atit Road, Bangkok, 10200 Thailand Website: http://www.unicef.org/eapro/ Email: [email protected] Twitter: twitter.com/unicefasiapac

Improv-

edShared

Other Un-

improved

Open

Defec-

ation

Improv-

edShared

Other Un-

improved

Open

Defec-

ation

Improv-

edShared

Other Un-

improved

Open

Defec-

ation

1990 9,057 19 3 13 65 0 0 6 94 3 0 8 892015 15,677 88 12 0 0 30 7 3 60 42 8 3 471990 1,165,429 68 5 24 3 40 2 49 9 48 3 42 72015 1,401,587 87 6 7 0 64 3 31 2 76 5 18 1

1990 18 - - - - - - - - - - - -

2015 21 - - - - - - - - 98 - 1 1

1990 20,194 - - - - - - - - - - - -2015 25,155 88 6 6 0 73 3 24 0 82 5 13 01990 728 85 4 10 1 37 2 53 8 57 3 35 52015 893 93 5 2 0 88 5 7 0 91 5 4 01990 178,633 61 8 12 19 24 6 21 49 35 7 18 402015 255,709 72 10 5 13 47 12 12 29 61 11 8 201990 71 43 9 4 44 20 2 14 64 28 5 10 572015 106 51 11 18 20 31 3 17 49 40 7 17 361990 4,245 - - - - - - - - - - - -2015 7,020 94 4 1 1 56 2 5 37 71 3 3 231990 18,211 90 4 5 1 83 4 5 8 86 4 6 42015 30,651 96 4 0 0 96 4 0 0 96 4 0 0

1990 47 77 11 10 2 41 9 29 21 65 10 17 8

2015 59 84 12 2 2 56 13 10 21 77 12 4 7

1990 96 49 - 46 5 9 - 80 11 19 - 72 92015 104 85 - 10 5 49 - 40 11 57 - 33 101990 2,184 65 31 3 1 - - - - - - - -2015 2,923 66 32 1 1 43 30 0 27 60 31 0 91990 42,123 - - - - - - - - - - - -2015 54,164 84 13 2 1 77 11 6 6 80 12 4 41990 9 66 31 2 1 NA NA NA NA 66 31 2 12015 11 66 31 0 3 NA NA NA NA 66 31 0 31990 2 - - - - - - - - - - - -2015 1 - - - - - - - - 100 - 0 01990 15 63 - 37 - 8 - 92 - 46 - 54 -2015 21 100 - 0 0 100 - 0 0 100 - 0 0

1990 4,158 62 10 25 3 13 3 66 18 20 4 60 16

2015 7,632 56 9 31 4 13 3 71 13 19 3 67 11

1990 61,949 69 17 7 7 46 12 19 23 57 14 14 152015 101,803 78 19 0 3 71 18 1 10 74 18 1 71990 163 94 5 1 0 92 6 2 0 93 6 1 02015 193 93 5 2 0 91 6 3 0 91 6 3 0

1990 312 - - - - - - - - - - - -

2015 584 81 - 10 9 15 - 19 66 30 - 16 54

1990 56,583 89 10 0 1 86 4 0 10 87 5 0 82015 67,401 90 10 0 0 96 4 0 0 93 7 0 0

1990 751 - - - - - - - - - - - -

2015 1,173 69 17 7 7 27 6 31 36 41 9 24 26

1990 2 NA NA NA NA - - - - 45 2 53 -2015 1 NA NA NA NA - - - - 90 5 5 -1990 95 97 1 2 - 94 1 5 - 94 1 5 -2015 106 98 1 1 - 89 1 10 - 91 1 8 -1990 9 75 8 15 2 71 4 18 7 73 6 16 52015 10 86 9 3 2 - - - - - - - -1990 147 - - - - - - - - - - - -2015 264 65 33 1 1 55 15 28 2 58 20 20 21990 68,910 65 4 7 24 29 2 26 43 36 2 23 392015 93,387 94 5 1 0 70 4 25 1 78 5 16 11990 1,634,142 70 6 19 5 40 3 41 16 49 4 34 132015 2,066,655 86 7 5 2 64 6 24 6 76 6 14 4

Tuvalu

Vanuatu

Viet Nam

Region

Samoa

Solomon

Islands

Thailand

Timor-Leste

Tokelau

Tonga

Myanmar

Nauru

Niue

Palau

Papua New

Guinea

Philippines

Kiribati

Lao PDR

Malaysia

Marshall

Islands

Micronesia

Mongolia

Cambodia

China

Cook Islands

DPR Korea

Fiji

Indonesia

Country Year Total

Population

(x 1,000)

Urban Rural National

http://www.unicef.org/eapro/

mailto:[email protected]

a snapshot of sanitation and hygiene in e asia and the …

Documents