Drinking water and sanitation : How long will it take to achieve the targets?

An article by Gérard Payen, Vice-President of the French Water Partnership (FWP) and former water adviser to the UN Secretary-General.

©FERRANTRAITE – ISTOCK

In 2015, the unanimous adoption of the Agenda 2030 and its Global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) finally provided humanity with a number of ambitious projects for drinking water and sanitation. As far as drinking water is concerned, we are aiming for universal access to uncontaminated water that is easily accessible and available every day at an affordable cost, in order to make this human right a reality. For sanitation, we also have a goal of universal access: to ensure that everyone has decent toilets that pose no health risk, with proper disposal of human waste, another right. But we also want to protect ourselves: to protect our neighbours, others and the environment, from all forms of water pollution caused by human activities.

Our ambition is to reduce by 50% the amount of wastewater discharged into the environment without treatment. These global objectives are described in detail in SDG targets 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3, with particular attention paid to poor people in target 1.4 and slum dwellers in target 11.1. They are ambitious, but unfortunately they correspond to very real and significant needs.

Significant progress in access…

The adoption of the global MDG programme has greatly improved our knowledge of needs. A huge effort has been made by statisticians at the UN and in all countries to design relevant indicators to monitor progress towards the global goals. Although still limited, the new statistical knowledge represents major progress. For objectives whose evolution over time has already been estimated, the players can no longer be satisfied with fine speeches about what they are doing and the resulting progress. They are now faced with the reality of needs.

When it comes to people’s access to drinking water and sanitation in their homes, we now have solid estimates of current needs and trends since 2015 at global level, by major region, and for many countries. On average, progress is clear: between 2015 and 2022, almost 700 million people will have gained satisfactory access to uncontaminated water.

As for access to basic sanitation, i.e. hygienic, dignified and non-collective toilets, the gains are even greater: 1 billion since 2015. These advances should be compared with needs, which are steadily increasing as a result of demographic, urban and economic growth, as well as rising living standards. The 550 million increase in the world’s population over the same period reduces the scale of progress towards universal access, i.e. the reduction in needs (see graph below).

… but targets far from met

Progress on drinking water is very slow, far too slow, with 2.2 billion people still using water that is probably contaminated, three times as many as without electricity. If this rate of progress were to continue, hundreds of millions of people would be without drinking water in the next century, even though universal access was planned for 2030. Over the period 2015-2022, the reduction in access needs was four times slower for drinking water than for basic sanitation, while access to electricity improved five times faster. In other words, policies for access to drinking water are far less effective than policies for access to sanitation and electricity.

If we take a closer look at the trends, we can see that prolonging current trends for drinking water would in no way solve the needs. In fact, needs are increasing rather than decreasing in two very large populations: the urbanised half of the planet and sub-Saharan Africa (see figure below).

These setbacks [1] make it mathematically impossible to achieve the global goal of universal access to drinking water. The number of people lacking basic sanitation is also rising in sub-Saharan Africa. On the other hand, sanitation is slowly improving in the urban half of the world.

Insufficient results in education and health.

The WHO and UNICEF have recently produced global statistics showing the extent of the shortage of drinking water and toilets in schools and, even worse, in healthcare establishments, despite the fact that non-contamination of water and by water is a major factor in health. On average, only three quarters of schools worldwide (and almost half of those in the poorest quarter of the world) have permanent access to clear water (although it is not guaranteed to be potable) for drinking, washing hands or cleaning; 8% have water facilities, but the water does not flow every day, and 15% have only water that is potentially contaminated by animals.

The situation is similar for toilets: only 78% of schools have proper, separate toilets for girls and boys, 11% have only single-sex toilets and 11% have no hygienic closed toilets. Inadequate sanitation is therefore an obstacle to the schooling of almost one girl in four. Fortunately, the situation seems to be improving: in eight years, the need for drinking water or sanitation has been reduced by around 28%.

The problems are similar for health establishments: in 2022, only 84% of hospitals and 80% of smaller health establishments had permanent access to clear water (of unknown potability) for drinking, treatment and cleaning. In 2021, 850 million patients went to a healthcare facility without water, and the same number to facilities whose water was potentially contaminated by animals. The total number of these patients without sufficient water is increasing by around 1% per year.

As for toilets, there is not enough data to give a global picture. But we do know that only 30% of facilities in Latin America and 22% of facilities in sub-Saharan Africa have functional, hygienic toilets that are separated by sex.

A tanker truck supplies water to an unconnected neighbourhood in Delhi (India) © C.GUILLAIS

Too little attention paid to cleaning up water after use

Until very recently, there was no global data on pollution discharges. In 2015, the objective of halving the flow of wastewater discharged without treatment was adopted, and after several years this has finally made it possible to establish statistical data. It is estimated that the global proportion of domestic wastewater discharged into the environment without proper treatment will be 42% in 2022.

But in the absence of a comparable estimate for an earlier date, we will have to wait another two or three years to find out whether the global total is increasing or decreasing. We do know, however, that the very high number of people without ‘safely managed’ sanitation, i.e. without minimal decontamination or non-contaminating storage, is slowly falling (-9% in seven years).

As for pollution discharged by industry, the data from individual countries is still too incomplete to permit a global estimate. We therefore do not know whether the world is progressing or falling behind on its SDG 6.3 target for reducing pollution discharges. It should also be noted that the indicators chosen for SDG targets 6.6 and 14.1 are insufficient to measure the impact of discharges on water and marine ecosystems.

Basic sanitation private hygienic closed toilets ©G. PAYEN

Doing more and doing it faster

The world has finally set ambitious targets for access to drinking water, access to sanitation and controlling pollution from wastewater. This has greatly improved our global knowledge of these issues. But this new information does not show any change in the pace of achievement after 2015. Worse still, it shows setbacks for several parts of the world’s population. If current trends were to continue unchanged, there would still be billions of people, over several generations, without access to drinking water or sanitation. When it comes to controlling pollution, it is also clear that the objective has no chance of being achieved.

Today, most of the various players are doing what they can with their respective resources and constraints. Many very positive projects are being launched, by public authorities, financial institutions, economic players, NGOs and local communities. But taken as a whole, these many initiatives are not enough. If the huge gaps between objectives and reality are narrowing only slowly, or even increasing, it is not because of inaction, but because the rate of progress is lower than the rate of growth in needs. The collective global challenge is clear: we need to do more, faster. We need to move from a world where the many stakeholders in the water sector are satisfied with a job well done, to a world where the scale of the drinking water and sanitation challenges is effectively addressed [2].

A political leap forward is needed. For the past four years, UN-Water has been alerting all governments to the need to speed up public water and sanitation policies, but so far without any convincing effect. This is no easy task, as it calls into question many habits and political balances. Even France has some progress to make. This century, governments have only met once at the UN to discuss all their water problems. That was in March 2023. They recognised a global crisis but failed to commit to any action. They will meet again in December 2026, this time to discuss the implementation of their objectives, those mentioned above. New statistical knowledge will objectify the situation and render meaningless the declarations of good intentions that ignore them. Will governments finally decide to adapt their actions to their common objectives?

 

[1] ‘Eau potable : que nous apprennent les statistiques mondiales au-delà des rapports officiels ?’, Gérard Payen, Défis humanitaires #86 (February 2024).

[2] ‘Le défi mondial de l’eau potable et de l’assainissement : faire davantage et plus vite’, Gérard Payen, AFD Proparco, ‘Secteur privé & développement’ #42, November 2024.

 

TO GO FURTHER

– The numerical data on the various accesses are extracted or calculated by the author from reports and the database available on the WHO-Unicef website http://www.washdata.org.

– For wastewater, the reference report is Progress on Wastewater Treatment – 2024 Update, WHO-Habitat, UN-Water.

– Gérard Payen, ‘Accès à l’eau potable : le changement majeur d’objectif mondial en 2015 se heurt à des habitudes technocratiques tenaces’, in Défis Humanitaires, March 2023.

We would like to thank the Revue des ponts, des eaux et des forêts and the graduates of the Ecole nationale des Ponts et Chaussées for permission to republish in Défis Humanitaires this article by Gérard Payen, which appeared in PCM 919 in December 2024.

Water, a common good – Understanding planetary cycles

Review (Integration)

 

Gérard Payen.

Gérard Payen has been working for over 35 years to solve water-related problems in all countries. As Water Adviser to the Secretary General of the United Nations (member of UNSGAB) from 2004 to 2015, he contributed to the recognition of the Human Rights to safe drinking water and sanitation, as well as to the adoption of the numerous water-related targets of the global Sustainable Development Goals. Today, he continues to work to mobilise the international community for better management of water-related problems, which requires more ambitious public policies. Vice-president of the French Water Partnership, he also advises the United Nations agencies that produce global water statistics. Impressed by the number of misconceptions about the nature of water-related problems, ideas that hamper public authorities in their decision-making, he published a book in 2013 to dismantle these preconceptions.

 

I invite you to read these interviews and articles published in the edition :

Trump is causing a humanitarian tsunami.

President Donald Trump signs executive orders © White House

The decision by the Trump administration, led by Elon Musk, has hit the humanitarian and development aid sector like a bolt from the blue. After a 90-day freeze on all programmes, almost all the employees of USAID and its agencies (BHA, BPRM) were immediately dismissed.

Then, on the night of 26-27 February, humanitarian actors received letters suddenly cutting off funding in countries where emergency relief is vital, such as Sudan, Syria, Niger, Yemen and Mozambique.

What is striking is the suddenness and brutality of the decision, and we can only be pessimistic for the future when we learn that more than 10,000 programmes have been sacrificed, along with 92% of USAID’s budget, according to indications yet to be confirmed.

It’s an earthquake, a tidal wave, a tsunami, a cataclysm, unprecedented because budgets have only been increasing for over 35 years, even though the curve of resources was falling compared with that of needs, according to a scissor effect that we analysed here recently.

The fall will be all the harder when we know that in 2023, while global Official Development Assistance (ODA) reached USD 223 billion, the contribution of the United States, the largest contributor, represented USD 64.7 billion, including USD 14.5 billion in humanitarian assistance. Without knowing what will happen to the State Department’s budget in this area, we can measure the haemorrhaging of aid when observers indicate that American aid represents 42% of international aid.

The humanitarian consequences are immediate when, depending on the organisation, American funding sometimes represents between 20% and 50% of its budget! One NGO has had to suspend immediately a drinking water supply programme for 650,000 displaced persons in Darfur, while another organisation has had to stop its programme of 850,000 medical consultations in Afghanistan.

Distribution of hygiene kits in Kulbus, 300km from Al Geneina in Darfur 2 ©Solidarités International

There is no doubt that this decision by the Trump administration will lead to a deterioration in survival conditions and ultimately to an increase in mortality among vulnerable populations, as well as a great deal of despair when aid is cut off so abruptly without even having had time to organise to limit the shock. We need to be able to assess the terrible human consequences this will have, without forgetting the responsibility of the States and the protagonists of the conflicts towards their populations.

Frankly, whatever the reasons for the Trump administration’s decision, it is not responsible to put the lives of so many human beings and the partner organisations that help them at risk in this way. What is the value of the word and credibility of a country that behaves like this with regard to humanitarian and development aid? We are talking here about saving lives and escaping from extreme poverty. This is neither a luxury nor an action contrary to the defence or promotion of the United States, which is no longer recognised in this decision!

A humanitarian tsunami.

We need to understand and act quickly. We are facing a drastic reduction in humanitarian and development aid from the United States, but also from other countries that are now cutting back on Official Development Assistance and humanitarian aid, despite some rare counter-examples.

Germany, for example, has already announced a drastic 53% cut in its humanitarian aid by 2025, from an initial level of €2.77 billion. Similarly, France, which had planned a budget of one billion euros in 2025, will only be spending half that amount, while at the same time its Official Development Assistance will lose more than 2 billion euros this year.

The case of the UK is emblematic of this serious and lasting trend. This country set an example by devoting 0.7% of its GDP to ODA until the end of the 2010s. Back in 2020, Boris Johnson, then Conservative Prime Minister, reduced ODA from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross domestic product (GDP). It is now set to fall to 0.3%. ‘I’m not happy about this announcement’, said the new Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

At the same time, the UK’s defence budget will rise from 2.3% of GDP to 2.5% from 2027, and should rise to 3% by 2030. As a result, the British defence budget, which stood at 77 billion euros in 2024, will increase by 16.1 billion euros each year from 2027 to meet the risk of war in Europe.

The shock for the humanitarian sector is massive and violent. Apart from the NGOs that have most of their funds from public generosity and have the necessary cash flow, for the majority of NGOs this means the closure of programmes and country missions, as well as redundancies in the field and at headquarters of between 20% and 50% of staff.

This process has already begun among NGOs and will continue, especially as it is still difficult to assess the indirect consequences, such as the interruption of American funding to United Nations agencies that call on international and national NGOs. There is even talk of the United States withdrawing from various multilateral organisations, and Elon Musk has even gone so far as to support an exit from the UN!

Women and children collecting unsafe water in Kenya, causing sometimes fatal water-borne diseases © Water.org

In this edition, we publish two articles to mark World Water Day on 22 March. Access to drinking water and sanitation, and water for agriculture, are vital needs for populations. What will become of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals 2015-2030, including Goal 6 for water, in this context?

What are the alternatives for humanitarian actors?

While the effects are global, they will be felt in different ways depending on the level of partnership with USAID, BHA, BPRM and the business model of each NGO.

Faced with a drastic reduction in funding for humanitarian and development aid, the consequences are massive, rapid and lasting. The priority is to safeguard, as far as possible, both aid to populations and the operational core of relief organisations.

In this context, we will have to rely as much on our own strengths and re-mobilise the internal potential of each organisation and its supporters, as we will have to optimise the pooling of resources to save money and build alliances with other organisations and with countries and public or private institutions that will remain mobilised for humanitarian security.

For the time being, we are faced with two contradictory injunctions. We need to reduce the number of organisations while preserving their operational core as a driving force for action and recovery. Each organisation will have to provide a time-calibrated response. The NGO coordinations will put forward an adapted and convincing global plea that goes beyond the usual language.

Here is a summary of the areas of effort identified, which each organisation will optimise:

Mobilisation of all internal resources, governance, head office, field.
Optimising the pooling of purchasing and operational innovation in aid.
Mobilising individual donors, corporate partners, foundations and local authorities.
Optimising partnerships with institutional partners in France and other EU member states, other countries and the UN.
Prospecting and developing other partners such as non-European OECD member countries (Canada, Japan, Australia, South Korea, etc.) and the Gulf States.

More concretely, solutions such as the State Guaranteed Loan (SGL) should be explored as a response to the security and redeployment of humanitarian NGOs.

In France, the Groupe de Concertation Humanitaire (GCH), which brings together humanitarian NGOs and Coordination Sud with the Centre de Crise et de Soutien (CDCS) of the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs, will be a major vector for mobilisation and a relay with Europe and the United Nations. This work has already begun.

VOICE at the European Parliament’s Development Committee with the ICRC, MSF and the EU Red Cross.

The European level is essential, both for DG ECHO’s 2025 budget, whose Emergency Aid Reserve (EAR) could be significantly increased. The Multiannual Financial Framework (2028-2025) of the new European Commission will be the litmus test of the political will to strengthen humanitarian security at a time when the United States is pulling out.

This is where VOICE, the umbrella organisation for European humanitarian NGOs, will have a major role to play in promoting appropriate proposals to the European Commission this year. This action will be more effective if it is coordinated with governments, NGOs, the Red Cross family and United Nations agencies. With this in mind, VOICE ‘calls on the European Union to take the lead in a global strategic dialogue to develop a new humanitarian system’.

Against a backdrop of national debt, balance of payments deficits, political and social instability, uncertainty about identity and the future, the abandonment of the United States and a reduction in ODA, humanitarian actors must also fundamentally review their communications and advocacy, which are already outdated.

Aid will be questioned, challenged and called into question both politically and in relation to other priorities. What is a priority, what is not, what has become superfluous? What is the humanitarian raison d’être and what is its real added value? Why is it necessary, if not essential? What do we do with the money? How do we convince people now? As a friend said to me, how do you convince a voter in Wisconsin or the Massif Central to help Ukraine, Haiti, Myanmar or Sudan?

Towards a new Yalta?

A geopolitical tsunami.

Over and above the essential question of funding, humanitarians are going to have to live with and adapt to a major geopolitical upheaval. Donald Trump is turning the tables on international relations and putting an end to two of the European Union’s fundamental pillars – the transatlantic link (NATO), multilateralism and international law. We are returning to the balance of power, with old empires reawakening.

This began with Russia’s war in Ukraine, which opens the door to other possible conflicts in Europe itself. But it is also the path taken by China when it threatens Taiwan and wants to occupy all the space in the China Sea and the straits, the path taken by Turkey in the eastern Mediterranean and now in Syria, the path taken by Azerbaijan against Armenia, the path taken by Rwanda and the M23 in the DRC. The law of the strongest. Others will follow!

The vote on 24 February at the United Nations on support for Ukraine and its territorial integrity gives an idea of the upheavals underway when the United States votes against with Russia and the number of votes against and abstentions increases considerably compared with the previous vote on 2 March 2022.

After 3 years of war, Ukraine is still in danger. Borodianka, Kyiv Oblast, 6 April. Photo: Oleksandr Ratushniak / UNDP Ukraine

The rapprochement between the United States and Russia is a return to the condominium of the Cold War, leaving Europe surprised and in danger. In view of the risk to freedom, independence and sovereignty posed by a possible war in Europe, beyond Ukraine, a rapid and massive increase in Europe’s defence budgets will be essential in the long term. The European Union is going to have to review its fundamentals if it is to face up to the new world that is asserting itself with force. It will have to rely on its roots, its historical realities and its peoples if it is to exist and be strong, because there is a great risk that it will be dismantled and/or subservient.

Conclusion.

The humanitarian sector is caught up in a larger, more powerful whole which sets its own pace and priorities. How will the humanitarian sector survive and renew itself in this tsunami? This is the existential question facing the sector today.

Its raison d’être, which is to save lives, is still its mission in the face of wars, disasters and epidemics. The development of fragile countries is still the best response to people’s basic needs. And our experience teaches us that failure to do so will generate instability one step at a time, according to the theory of the butterfly effect or the domino effect, which creates chaos and human suffering.

Alain Boinet.

Alain Boinet is President of the association Défis Humanitaires, which publishes the online magazine www.defishumanitaires.com. He is the founder of the humanitarian association Solidarités International, of which he was Managing Director for 35 years. He is also a member of the Groupe de Concertation Humanitaire at the Centre de Crise et de Soutien of the French Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs, and of the Board of Directors of Solidarités International, the Partenariat Français pour l’Eau (PFE), the Véolia Foundation and the Think Tank (re)sources. He continues to travel to the field (Northeast Syria, Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh and Armenia) and to speak out in the media.

 

 

I invite you to read these interviews and articles published in the edition :