A Snapshot - 2012 Update. Sanitation and Hygiene in East Asia and the Pacific

A SNAPSHOT – 2012 UPDATE

SANITATION AND HYGIENE IN EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

A Snapshot of Sanitation and Hygiene in East Asia and the Pacific – 2012 Update 1

Overview

The East Asia and Pacific Region has made gains over the last 20 years:

The proportion of people using improved sanitation increased by 35 percentage points between 1990 and 2010 (more than double the rate of the world as a whole)

East Asia and the Pacific is the only UNICEF region* already to have met the MDG sanitation target

The proportion of people who practice open defecation has dropped to just 5 percent in the region

823 million more people use improved sanitation than 20 years ago, the majority of them in China

However, significant challenges remain:

Six countries in the region are not on track to meet the MDG sanitation target

671 million people are still without access to improved sanitation in the region, more than in sub-Saharan Africa

Progress in the Pacific sub-region has stalled: the proportion of people using improved sanitation has not changed in 20 years (51%)

Coverage disparities are pronounced, with national improved sanitation rates ranging from less than one-third of the population (Cambodia) to more than 95 per cent in 7 countries

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

New data indicates that handwashing-with-soap rates are lower in rural areas and much lower in poor households in some countries

Institutional monitoring data indicates that many primary schools still lack adequate sanitation facilities for school children

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 2010 dataset, the latest available (see page 8 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

32

67

7

16

48

12

135

1990 2010

Cove

rag

e (

%)

Open defecation

Unimproved

Shared

Improved

49

63

6

1120

11

2515

1990 2010

Co

ve

rag

e (

%)

Open defecation

Unimproved

Shared

Improved

OpenDefecation

Unimproved Facilities

Shared Facilities

Improved Facilities


Progress and Challenges

Of the 823 million new sanitation users, most live in China

Seven countries in the region are not on track to meet the MDG sanitation target

Sanitation Gap in Off-Track* Countries

Number of people who gained access to improved sanitation from 1990 to 2010, millions

Gap between the required coverage in 2010 if country were on-track and actual 2010 coverage (%). * Includes countries in the ‘progress but insufficient JMP category.

Sanitation coverage varies significantly from country to country

Improved sanitation coverage in East Asia and Pacific countries, 2010, national, per cent, with Region and World comparators (no data available for Kiribati, Micronesia and the Solomon Islands)

China, 593

Indonesia, 71

Viet Nam, 42

Philippines, 34

Rest of region, 83

Millions of people gaining access, 1990 to 2010

1

5

11

14

15

16

23

Samoa

Indonesia

Timor-Leste

Cambodia

Nauru

Mongolia

Papua New Guinea

31

47

5154

63 64

7476 76

80

96 96

45

57

65

75

8385

9396

98100 100 100

67

63

0

20

40

60

80

100

Co

ve

rag

e (

%)

East Asia Pacific

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 36 percentage points in 1990 (57% urban, 21% rural) to 19 points in 2010 (77% urban, 58% rural), far smaller than the global gap of 32 points

China, Philippines, Thailand, Palau and Fiji have made the best progress reducing the urban-rural sanitation gap; while limited or no progress has been made in Cambodia, Indonesia and several Pacific countries

In 2010 the degree of disparity varies greatly from country to country (see graph below)

Urban Rural

The degree of urban-rural disparity varies significantly

Use of improved sanitation facilities: urban-rural range in East Asia and the Pacific Countries, 2010 (in Thailand, urban coverage at 95% is slightly lower than rural coverage at 96%)

57

77

13

2024

16 2

1990 2010

Covera

ge

(%

)

Open defecation

Unimproved

Shared

Improved

21

584

13

59

21

168

1990 2010

Open defecation

Unimproved

Shared

Improved

OpenDefecation

Unimproved

Shared

Improved Facilities

7374

86

73

89

96

64

8379

73

94

76

20

56

71

39

50

95

29

7369

96

37

68

57

31

64

80

54

63

96

51

7674

96

47

76

66

Urban %

Rural %

National %


Economic inequities are pronounced in East Asia and the Pacific

The poorest households have much lower access to improved sanitation facilities than richer households in many countries in the region (such as in Lao PDR where coverage is only 7% in the poorest quintile but 98% in the richest)

Open defecation levels are generally much higher for poorer households, such as in Indonesia and Lao PDR

Lao PDR MICS 2006

Viet Nam MICS 2011

Indonesia DHS 2007

Mongolia MICS 2010

Use of improved sanitation facilities, unimproved facilities, and open defecation by wealth quintiles, with improved figures highlighted (%). Data sources as shown. The shared facilities category is not included for multi-study comparison. In the Mongolia chart, unimproved includes both open defecation and other unimproved. Wealth quintiles are based on the asset indices used by the household surveys, divided into five categories.

Regional and country averages mask large disparities within countries

This ‘equity tree’ example from the Philippines shows that the poorest households in rural areas have much lower coverage levels than many national, regional and global averages

Use of Improved sanitation in the Philippines, per cent. Sources: JMP 2012 and Philippines DHS, 2008; CEE/CIS is Central, Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States

0

20

40

60

80

100

Poorest 2nd 3rd 4th Richest

Improved Unimproved Open Defecation

7

21

36

65

98

0

20

40

60

80

100


42

66

85

98 100

0

20

40

60

80

100


31

56

76

95100

0

20

40

60

80

100


11

45

5764

96

0

20

40

60

80

100


100 Richest 20% 100 Richest 20%98 Samoa Urban Rural96 Malaysia

93 Tokelu

85 CEE/CIS

79 Urban

75 Poorest 20%74 Philippines Urban

69 Rural67 East Asia

& the Pacific64 China

63 World

57 Vanuatu

51 Mongolia

47 Timor-Leste

45 Papua New Guinea

39 Poorest 20%

38 South Asia Rural

30 Sub S Africa 31 Cambodia


Focus on the Pacific Sub-Region

Progress has stalled in the Pacific Sub-Region* overall

In 1990 the Pacific sub-region had much higher national sanitation coverage levels than the East Asia sub-region and many other parts of the world

By 2010 the Pacific had been passed by East Asia and by other regions of the world for national and rural coverage

All regions have made much better progress than the Pacific sub-region

The East Asia sub-region has passed the Pacific sub-region Use of improved sanitation facilities, per cent

Gains have been made in all UNICEF regions, but not in the Pacific Percentage point gain in national improved sanitation facility use, 1990 to 2010. Pacific and East Asia sub-regions compared to UNICEF regions.

However, some Pacific countries have made good progress

Six Pacific countries have achieved over 90 per cent sanitation coverage by 2010 (Tokelau, Tonga, Samoa, Cook Islands, Niue and Palau)

Nine Pacific countries are either on track to meet the MDG sanitation target, or have already achieved it

The urban-rural sanitation coverage gap was significantly reduced in Fiji (from a gap of 50 percentage points in 1990 to just 23 points in 2010) and Palau (from a 42 point gap in 1990 to parity in 2010)

* In this snapshot, Papua New Guinea is in the Pacific sub-region in conformance with MDG classification practices (the MDG Oceania region). This means that coverage levels and progress rates in that country heavily influence sub-regional averages due to its large population relative to Pacific Island Nations.

Urban Improved Rural Improved National Improved

1990 54 20 29

2000 65 39 48

2010 76 57 66

1990 82 44 51

2000 81 43 50

2010 81 45 51

East Asia

Pacific

0

4

5

12

12

16

37

0 10 20 30 40

Pacific sub-region

CEE/CIS

Sub-Saharan Africa

Americas and Caribbean

Middle East & North Africa

South Asia

East Asia sub-region

% point change 1990-2010


Handwashing with Soap and Water

New standardized hygiene indicators

A standardized set of proxy indicators for handwashing with soap is now included in some DHS and MICS surveys

Surveyors use observation to establish whether or not households have a specific place for handwashing and whether or not water and soap is available at that place

This methodology is more robust than past hygiene surveys that relied mainly on self-reported behaviour

As more surveys are carried out, regional and global datasets on handwashing will become available: currently two national surveys in East Asia have incorporated the indicators

Results from Cambodia and Mongolia

In both countries urban dwellers are about twice as likely as rural dwellers to have handwashing facilities with soap and water available

In Mongolia there is a pronounced difference across household wealth quintiles, especially between the poorest households (with only 10 per cent having a handwashing place with water, soap and other cleansing agents) and other households

In Cambodia there is a major difference between the richest households and all the other households

Cambodia, DHS 2010 Handwashing with water, soap or other cleansing agents Proportion of households where a place for handwashing was observed with water and soap or other cleansing agent (e.g., ash) present, by household wealth quintile and urban/rural

Mongolia, Summary MICS 2010 Handwashing with water, soap or other cleansing agents Proportion of households where a place for handwashing was observed with water and soap or other cleansing agent present, by household wealth quintile and urban/rural

30

4146

55

85

0

20

40

60

80

100


Per

cen

t H

ou

seh

old

s

Water and soap

83

44

0

20

40

60

80

100

Urban Rural

10

48

70

86

96

0

20

40

60

80

100


Per

cen

t H

ou

seh

old

s

Water and soap

77

37

0

20

40

60

80

100

Urban Rural


Sanitation in Schools

A large proportion of schools do not have adequate sanitation in many countries in the region (estimated figures)

Estimated proportion of primary schools with adequate sanitation facilities, nationally. Data* gathered by UNICEF Country Offices from institutional sources in 13 countries.

Poor Sanitation in schools is a cause for concern

Available data* shows that sanitation coverage is low in primary schools in the region

In some countries fewer than half of schools have adequate facilities

Evidence shows that functioning sanitation facilities are necessary for education achievement, health and gender equality

Sanitation coverage in schools may be lower than at home

Adequate facilities in primary schools, non-weighted average of 13 countries (1st graph); national coverage average in the same countries (2nd graph). (These datasets are not directly comparable: one is from household surveys the other from institutional sources.)

*Data on water and sanitation in schools presented here is from a variety of government institutional reporting systems (compiled by UNICEF country offices), and generally not from surveys. School coverage data is based on national standards, which vary from country to country. Criteria defining the adequacy of facilities in schools can include the ratio of boys and of girls to toilets available, whether or not girls and boys toilets are separate and private, the existence of toilets for teachers, the type of toilet/latrine, and others.

78

63

35

25

100

3023

100 100

65 65

45

62

0

20

40

60

80

100

63

0

20

40

60

80

100

Sanitation inSchools

Sch

oo

ls w

ith

ad

equ

ate

san

itat

ion

, %

72

0

20

40

60

80

100

Sanitation inHouseholds

Po

pu

lati

on

usi

ng

san

itat

ion

at

ho

me,

%


Sanitation Coverage in East Asia and the Pacific

Improved sanitation coverage in East Asia and Pacific countries, 2010, 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.

Data Sources and Notes

Main sanitation dataset: from Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation: 2012 Update (with supplemental data from wssinfo.org), from WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation (JMP)

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

Cover photo credits, clockwise from top right: © UNICEF CBDA2008-00026/Noorani, NYHQ2009-2063/Estey, NYHQ2004-1269/Pirozzi, NYHQ2008-1274/Estey, MGLA2007-00886/Holmes.

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 Regional Office. Special appreciation also to the following reviewers for their valuable inputs: Almud Weitz from the Water and Sanitation Program; James Wicken from WaterAid; Hilda Winartasaputra from Plan International; and Ramesh Bhusal, Therese Dooley, Nguyen Thanh Hien, Libbet Horn-Phathanothai, Dara Johnston, Janine Kandel, Rolf Luyendijk, Nadarajah Moorthy, Henk van Norden, Marjolein Oijevaar, Michael Emerson P. Gnilo and David Parker from UNICEF.

Marshall

Islands

Kiribati

Tuvalu

Tokelau

Cook

Islands

Niue

Samoa

Tonga

FijiVanuatu

Solomon

Islands

Palau

Micronesia

Papua

New

Guinea

Indonesia

Malaysia

Philippines

Viet Nam

Myanmar

Thailand

Cambodia

China

Mongolia

Lao PDR

50% to 75%

76% to 90%

91% to 100%

Insufficient data

DPR Korea

Less than 50%Timor-

Leste

Nauru


Sanitation Coverage by Country Country estimates by type of sanitation practice, 1990, 2010

August 2012

UNICEF East Asia and Pacific Regional Office (EAPRO) 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 9,532 36 5 10 49 5 1 5 89 9 2 5 842010 14,138 73 10 2 15 20 4 4 72 31 5 3 611990 1,145,195 48 15 34 3 15 4 72 9 24 7 62 72010 1,341,335 74 24 2 0 56 14 28 2 64 19 16 1

1990 18 100 - 0 0 91 - 9 - 96 - 4 -

2010 20 100 - 0 0 100 - 0 0 100 - 0 0

1990 20,143 - - - - - - - - - - - -2010 24,346 86 6 8 - 71 3 26 - 80 5 15 -1990 728 90 - 10 0 40 - 52 8 61 - 35 52010 861 94 - 6 0 71 - 28 1 83 - 17 01990 184,346 56 8 17 19 21 6 25 48 32 7 22 392010 239,871 73 10 3 14 39 12 13 36 54 11 9 261990 72 36 7 16 41 21 2 12 65 26 4 13 572010 100 - - - - - - - - - - - -1990 4,192 - - - - - - - - - - - -2010 6,201 89 5 3 3 50 1 8 41 63 2 7 281990 18,209 88 4 7 1 81 3 7 9 84 3 8 52010 28,401 96 4 0 - 95 4 1 - 96 4 0 -

1990 47 77 11 12 - 41 9 50 - 64 10 25 -

2010 54 83 12 1 4 53 12 0 35 75 12 0 13

1990 96 55 - 45 - 20 - 80 - 29 - 71 -2010 111 - - - - - - - - - - - -1990 2,193 - - - - - - - - - - - -2010 2,756 64 31 2 3 29 22 23 26 51 28 9 121990 39,268 - - - - - - - - - - - -2010 47,963 83 12 4 1 73 14 5 8 76 13 5 61990 9 66 31 3 - - - - - 66 31 3 -2010 10 65 31 4 0 - - - - 65 31 4 01990 2 100 - 0 0 100 - 0 0 100 - 0 02010 1 100 - 0 0 100 - 0 0 100 - 0 01990 15 78 - 22 - 36 - 64 - 65 - 35 -2010 20 100 - 0 0 100 - 0 0 100 - 0 0

1990 4,158 78 - 19 3 42 - 42 16 47 - 39 14

2010 6,858 71 - 24 5 41 - 41 18 45 - 39 16

1990 61,629 69 15 8 8 45 10 22 23 57 12 15 162010 93,261 79 17 1 3 69 16 3 12 74 16 2 81990 161 100 - 0 0 99 - 1 - 99 - 1 -2010 183 98 - 2 0 98 - 2 0 98 - 2 0

1990 310 98 - 2 - - - - - - - - -

2010 538 98 - 2 - - - - - - - - -

1990 57,072 94 5 0 1 80 3 0 17 84 4 0 122010 69,122 95 5 0 0 96 4 0 0 96 4 0 0

1990 743 - - - - - - - - - - - -

2010 1,124 73 11 3 13 37 4 16 43 47 6 12 35

1990 2 - - - - 41 - 59 - 41 - 59 -2010 1 - - - - 93 - 7 - 93 - 7 -1990 95 98 - 2 - 96 - 4 - 96 - 4 -2010 104 98 - 2 - 96 - 4 - 96 - 4 -1990 9 86 - 14 - 76 - 24 - 80 - 20 -2010 10 88 - 10 2 81 - 12 7 85 - 11 41990 147 - - - - - - - - - - - -2010 240 64 33 3 0 54 15 29 2 57 20 22 11990 67,102 63 4 10 23 30 2 25 43 37 2 22 392010 87,848 94 5 1 0 68 4 22 6 76 4 16 41990 1,615,493 57 13 24 6 21 4 59 16 32 7 48 132010 1,965,479 77 20 1 2 58 13 21 8 67 16 12 5

Tuvalu

Vanuatu

Viet Nam

Region

Samoa

Solomon

Islands

Thailand

Timor-Leste

Tokelau

Tonga

Philippines

Kiribati

Lao PDR

Malaysia

Marshall

Islands

Micronesia

Mongolia

Myanmar

Nauru

Niue

Palau

Papua New

Guinea

Indonesia

Country Year

Urban Rural National Total

Population

(x 1,000)

Cambodia

China

Cook Islands

DPR Korea

Fiji

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

mailto:[email protected]

Health & Medicine

A Snapshot - 2012 Update. Sanitation and Hygiene in East Asia and the Pacific