FromMardelPlatatoNYC Jan2023

Abstract

The United Nations (UN) 1977 Water Conference at Mar del Plata (MDP) sought to avoid a water crisis of global dimensions by 2000 and to ensure an adequate supply of good quality water to meet socioeconomic needs. While much has been achieved, the MDP goals are not yet realised. Unsafe, or perceived to be unsafe, drinking water still affects at least 2 billion people, unsafe sanitation affects more than 4 billion people, and billions face severe water scarcity for at least part of the year. At the mid-point of the 2018-2028 International Decade for Action, 'Water for Sustainable Development', the UN 2023 Water Conference in New York City (NYC) offers a unique opportunity to review progress on global water goals, including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially SDG 6 and its targets. Here, we document the global goals and progress from MDP to NYC and highlight priorities to deliver on the MDP goals and beyond.

Full text

1
Goals, Progress and Priorities from Mar del
Plata in 1977 to New York in 2023^
R. Quentin Grafton
1*
, Asit K. Biswas
2
, Hilmer Bosch
3
, Safa
Fanaian
4
, Joyeeta Gupta
3
, Aromar Revi
5
, Neha Sami
5
and Cecilia Tortajada
6
1**
Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University,
132 Lennox Crossing, Acton, ACT 2601, Australia.
2
University of Glasgow, 1 Normal Avenue, Glasgow, G13 1FF,
United Kingdom.
3
Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, University of
Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, Amsterdam, 1018 WV,
The Netherlands.
4
The School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford,
South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QY, United Kingdom.
5
Indian Institute for Human Settlements, 2nd Main Road,
Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru, 560 080, Karnataka, India.
6
School of Interdisciplinary Studies, College of Social Sciences,
University of Glasgow, Rutherford/McCowan Building, Crichton
University Campus, Dumfries, DG1 4ZL, United Kingdom.
**Corresponding author e-mail: quentin.grafton@anu.edu.au,
Contributing authors are listed in alphabetical order:
asit.k.biswas@glasgow.ac.uk; h.j.bosch@uva.nl;
safa.fanaian@some.ox.ac.uk; j.gupta@uva.nl ; arevi@iihs.co.in;
nsami@iihs.ac.in; cecilia.tortajada@glasgow.ac.uk.
^: A revised version of this manuscript has been accepted for publication
in Nature Water

2
Abstract
The United Nations (UN) 1977 Water Conference at Mar del Plata (MDP)
sought to avoid a water crisis of global dimensions by 2000 and to
ensure an adequate supply of good quality water to meet socio-economic
needs. While much has been achieved, the MDP goals are not yet realised.
Unsafe, or perceived to be unsafe, drinking water still affects at least 2
billion people, unsafe sanitation affects more than 4 billion people, and
billions face severe water scarcity for at least part of the year. At the
mid-point of the 2018
–
2028 International Decade for Action, ‘Water for
Sustainable Development’, the UN 2023 Water Conference in New York
City (NYC) offers a unique opportunity to review progress on global water
goals, including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially
SDG 6 and its targets. Here, we document the global goals and progress from
MDP to NYC and
highlight priorities to deliver on the MDP goals and
beyond.
Keywords:
SDGs, justice, WASH, pollution, water quality, water
pricing, safe water, water-use efficiency, infrastructure, UN Water
Conferences.
Introduction
Despite a 5000-year history of water governance
1
, the world’s first
global conference on water
2
was not held until 1977 in Mar del Plata
(MDP), Argentina - the United Nations (UN) Water Conference (Fig.
1). MDP was the first gathering of governments at a high political level
to respond comprehensively to multiple global water agendas
3
. Its focus
was to ensure that all people, irrespective of their state of development
and social and economic condition, had access to water in the
appropriate quantity and quality to cover their basic needs
4
.
The MDP water agenda was carried forward in the International
Conference on Water and the Environment (ICWE) in Dublin (1992),
and the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in
Johannesburg (2002). Multiple UN initiatives have focused on similar
global actions and outcomes, including the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs, 2000–2015); Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs,
2015–2030); and the High-Level Panel on Water (HLPW, 2015–18)
(Fig. 1). Many parallel local, regional (e.g., Arab Water Forum), and

3
global (e.g., World Water Forum, World Water Week) water-related
forums have also emerged since 1977. Here, we review the goals and
progress up to the UN 2023 Water Conference in New York City (NYC)
and highlight three priorities for consideration and action.
1
Goals, then and now
Between 1977 and 2023, the world’s human population doubled to 8
billion. Urbanisation, agricultural expansion, industrial development,
pollution, and climate change, have all placed enormous pressure on
water resources. Since MDP,
water has become scarcer per person, and
more polluted, and its availability in sufficient volumes and for
essential uses, including ecosystem integrity, is threatened by climate
change
5,6
. The increasing global water insecurity
7,8
imposes high
environmental and economic costs9–12 and magnifies risks13.
Fig 1: Timeline of key UN Water-related Initiatives 1975-2030
A crucial ongoing global goal has been to provide clean water and
adequate sanitation services for all. Many other water goals that began
at MDP have been retained and are part of multiple SDG Targets (Fig.
2a). Some ongoing goals include access to improved sources of water
and better sanitation services for all; better water data for improved
decision-making; increased co-operation from the transboundary to the
community level; reduced water pollution; and investment and

4
innovation in water-related (primarily grey) infrastructure. These are
within SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 11 (Housing).
Other water-related issues, such as gender (highlighted at ICWE, 1992),
agricultural water use, conflict zones, and desertification (highlighted at
MDP, 1977) have, respectively, been subsumed into SDG 5 (Gender
Equality), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong
Institutions), and SDG 15 (Desertification).
Fig. 2a Connecting the goals of UN-Water Initiatives: Mar del
Plata to New York City; Fig 2b. Word clouds representing the

5
often-used words with conference reports (data extracted from
respective conference reports).
In 1997, the UN member states adopted the Watercourses Convention.
The convention highlighted the need to share water equitably and
optimally between riparian nations to counter the prevalent notions of
absolute territorial sovereignty and absolute integrity of state territory.
Notably, the Watercourses Convention did not include the human right
to water. The international human right to water and sanitation was
recognised in 2002 by the United Nations Committee on Economic,
Cultural and Social Rights (General Comment No. 15)
14
and, in 2010, in
Resolution 64/292, the UN General Assembly declared water and
sanitation as a human right. These recognitions have not yet been
sufficient to ensure clean water for all at an affordable price, including
the impoverished, marginalised, many Indigenous peoples,
15
and those
in remote locations
in both the global North and South
16,17
.
Colonisation legacies within law and practices have left many low-
income countries with water ‘ownership’ patterns tied to land
ownership18 that impede water access and sharing. For example, while the
South African Constitution acknowledges customary law, this law is not
mentioned in the National Water Act (1998). Thus, customary water rights
are frequently overlooked, and apartheid-era water rights continue under the
Existing Lawful Use water entitlements19. Regulatory patterns in former
colonial states have also promoted a preference for ‘full permanent
sovereignty’ over natural resources, thus reinforcing competing interests
between countries19.
Since MDP,
water priorities have broadened from a focus on finance and
grey infrastructure for water access to a greater emphasis on the
environment
20
, especially climate change (Fig. 2b).
Ot
her vital priorities
include: responding to sovereignty and water sharing between nations;
the water-energy-food nexus
8
; water governance challenges from the
local to the global
21
; freshwater ecosystem losses
22,23
; conservation of
green infrastructure
24
; water’s gender and social dimensions
25
; private
sector provision of water services; water pricing
26,27
; adaptation
28
; civil
society’s participation in decision-making processes
29
, and the multiple
values of water
30
.

6
2
Progress
Progress on delivery of global water goals is mixed. For example, Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) was targeted in: MDP (1977) as
‘Provision of drinking water and sanitation for all in 1990’; in MDG
Target 7.C (2000) as ‘Reduce by half the proportion of people who
were not able to reach or afford safe drinking water compared to 1990’,
and ‘Halve by 2015 the proportion of people without access to improved
sources of drinking water and improved sources of sanitation’; in WSSD
(2002) as ‘To halve by 2015 the proportion of people without access to
basic sanitation compared to 1990’; and in SDG 6 (2015) as ‘Ensure
availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
by 2030’. These WASH goals have either not been achieved or are
contested
31
. Failure to meet global water goals goes beyond WASH, and
their progress is detailed below.
2.1
Water supply and sanitation
In 2020, some 5.8 billion people had access to safely managed drinking
water services, about 70% of the world’s population which is a 2 billion
increase since 2000
32
. Yet, less than 30% of Africans have access to
safely managed drinking water services compared to more than 90% of
North Americans and Europeans (Table 1). At the current rate of
progress (Fig. 3), many regions in the global North or South will not
achieve SDG Target 6.1: “By 2030, achieve universal and equitable
access to safe and affordable drinking water for all”
32
.

7
Table 1 Access to safely managed water supply and sanitation:
average vs weighted average by population (data source:
WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme)
About 60% of the world’s population in 2020 had access to safely
managed sanitation services. Yet some 1.7 billion people still lack basic
sanitation services, and at least half a billion people are forced to
defecate in the open. Further, within countries access is inequitable, with
rural regions having 26% lower coverage than urban regions
32,33
. At the
current rate of progress (Fig. 3), the world will not achieve SDG Target
6.2
33
: “By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and
hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the
needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations”.

8
Fig. 3 Worldwide progress towards access to safely managed
drinking water and sanitation. Figure includes average and weighted
average by population (Data Source: WHO/UNICEF Joint
Monitoring Programme)
2.2
Water quality
Water quality contributes to water scarcity and is a critical concern for
water security
34
, noting that water pollution arises from multiple
anthropogenic and natural sources
35,36
.
Global water quality data is limited, particularly in Africa and parts
of Asia and Latin America
34
. Thus, it is difficult to determine, at a
global scale, progress towards SDG Target 6.3: “By 2030, improve
water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and

9
minimising release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the
proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing
recycling and safe reuse globally”. Notwithstanding data limitations,
the UN Environment Programme concludes that surface water quality
has declined due to pollution in many of the rivers of Latin America,
Africa, and Asia
34
.
In some regions, there have been notable improvements in water quality,
especially in the global North and, most recently, in China
37
. The
water quality of the Rhine River improved substantially between 1945
and 2008
38
and had ‘more or less’ stable water quality from 2008-2020
39
.
Despite this progress, some freshwater ecosystems in the European
Union continue to degrade with pollution from chemicals and nutrients,
exacerbated by water withdrawals
40
.
The Ganges River (Ganga) supports more than 600 million people
and many bio-diverse ecosystems, yet it is one of the world’s most
polluted rivers. The Government of India’s Ganga Action Plan (GAP)
highlights the challenge of effectively responding to water pollution
at scale. The GAP was launched in 1986 and became the National
Mission for Clean Ganga in 2016, currently supported with USD one
billion from the World Bank to build institutional capacity and
undertake infrastructure investments
41,42
. Yet, multiple long-standing
challenges exist for a clean Ganga
43,44
that include implementation
delays; irregular release of funds; confusion over the roles of different
government institutions; and irregular monitoring. Consequently,
claims of improvement in Ganga’s water quality remain
contested
43,44
.
2.3
Water use efficiency
The High-Level Panel on Water (HLPW) highlighted the need for:
“efficient use of water through a national policy framework that creates
incentives for water users, including irrigators, to not waste or pollute
water, and promote its reuse”
45
. This idea is frequently applied to
irrigated agriculture with the goal to increase irrigation efficiency
45
(i.e.,
the ratio of water supporting beneficial plant growth to the total water
withdrawal). Water efficiency has been prioritised because irrigation
accounts for about 70% of blue water (e.g., freshwater lakes, rivers, and
aquifers) withdrawals and more than 80% of blue water consumption
46
.

10
Increased irrigation efficiency has been promoted to increase crop yields
and to respond to a more than doubling of global irrigated areas over the
past 60 years
47
. Higher irrigation efficiency helps farmers to increase
crop production. However, this increase is frequently associated with
reduced water availability elsewhere
48
because greater beneficial water
consumption promotes a ‘rebound effect’ that increases irrigation water
demand
49
and reduces the return flow of water from farmers’ fields to
streams, rivers, and aquifers. Consequently, without additional actions
such as limits on water consumption
50
, increasing water-use efficiency
alone will not achieve SDG Target 6.4: “By 2030, substantially increase
water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable
withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and
substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water
scarcity.”
2.4
Transboundary water treaties
Bilateral water treaties have existed since the 25th century BCE; today,
they number some 600. These treaties have been critical in shaping
principles of water law at a global level, that is: absolute territorial
sovereignty (countries have absolute rights to use the water flowing in
their territory, empowering upstream states); and the absolute integrity
of state territory (countries have the right to receive the same quality and
quantity of flows through time, benefitting downstream states)
1
.
Amending existing water laws is critical to ensure sustainable
governance of water. At the global scale, three water conventions relate
to transboundary waters, although none adequately responds to the
hydrological impacts of climate change. First, the Ramsar Agreement on
Wetlands (1971) had 172 contracting parties and entered into force in
1975 with the intent to stem the loss and degradation of wetlands of
international importance. Second, the UN Economic Commission for
Europe (UNECE) 1992 Water Convention had 46 contracting parties
and was later opened for ratification by non-UNECE members. Third,
the 1997 Watercourses Convention had 37 contracting parties and
entered into force in 2014
1
.
The 1992
Water Convention is notable for its focus on water pollution,
and its follow-up protocol responds to concerns over human health

11
related to drinking water and sanitation. The 1997 Watercourses
Convention is important because it shifted long-standing notions of
national sovereignty towards ‘do no harm’ to other states and to
equitable water sharing based on specified criteria and weights
agreed to by riparian countries
51
.
While hundreds of treaties govern
transboundary waters, many countries are reluctant to ratify the
Watercourses Convention, which specifies the need for equitable
sharing. Transboundary co-operation, as envisaged by the UN and
UNECE Water Conventions, has only progressed to a limited extent
and, consequently, is limited to specific water issues
51
. Thus, much
remains to be accomplished to achieve SDG Target 6.5: “By 2030,
implement integrated water resources management at all levels,
including through transboundary co-operation as appropriate.”
1
.
2.5
Protect and restore water-related ecosystems
About 35 percent of the world’s wetlands were lost between 1970 and
2015. This loss negatively impacts ecosystems, biodiversity, and human
welfare (Convention on Wetlands 2021). While some regions, such as
North America, have performed relatively well in reducing recent
losses, others, such as Africa and Latin America, have not
52
.
Nevertheless, more wetlands are currently characterised as in a ‘fair or
good’ ecological character state than previously, and only 23% of all
wetlands are reported as being in a ‘poor’ state
53
. Further, Ramsar
wetlands of international importance are considered to be in better
condition than wetlands in general
52
.

12
Fig. 4 Global Water Withdrawals (bill. Cu. M/year), and Global
Forest Area and deforestation (mill. Ha.) (data source: FAO stat,
2022)
About 70% of the global wetland losses happened in the 20th
century, with the highest loss rates in inland and coastal wetlands areas
occurring since 1950
54
. The current estimated total area of wetlands is
15–16 million km
2
and loss rates are 0.2% per year
55
. Much of this loss
is associated with land-use change, but inappropriate water regulation
(drainage, water
withdrawals, salinisation, river regulation, pollution)
has also been a contributing factor.
An important contributor to the degradation of water-related ecosystems
is reduced forest cover. Deforestation changes water availability and
contributes to soil erosion, degrades water quality, and increases
flooding risks. While forest cover has recently increased in some
regions, such as North America and Northern Europe
56
, the global
forested area continues to decline (Fig. 4). Another critical pressure on
water ecosystems is global blue water withdrawals, which have almost
doubled since MDP (1977)
57,58
.
In summary, SDG Target 6.6 has not been achieved: “By 2020,

13
protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains,
forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes”. Nor will SDG Target 15.1
be realised without a change in business-as-usual: “[c]onservation,
restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater
ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains
and drylands...”.
2.6
Data gaps
Eight of the 11 water-related indicators for SDG 6 are regularly
assessed by at least half of all countries. These indicators include
access to safe and affordable drinking water; increased water-use
efficiency; implementation of integrated water resources management;
protection of water-related ecosystems; and, international co-
operation and participation of local communities in improving water
and sanitation management. However, three
indicators - access to
sanitation, discharge of safely treated domestic and indus
trial wastewater,
and bodies of water with good ambient water quality - are not regularly
produced by most countries
10
. Further, only 115 countries report data
on total water access, and some (e.g., Australia and China) only
report urban water access but not rural water access (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5 Countries reporting data on access to safely managed water
supply (Data Source: WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme
database)
Thus, despite substantial progress, data constraints identified at MDP,

14
the MDGs
59
, and highlighted in the HLPW (2018), remain an
impediment to determining progress, identifying gaps, allocating
funding, and delivering actions linked to human development
60
.
Nevertheless, we contend that there is sufficient data to define priorities
and act.
3
Priorities
Progress since MDP shows that there is no single approach to achieve
sustainable and equitable goals of ‘water for all’. This is because the
burdens of water insecurity are primarily realised at a local level
(e.g., droughts, floods, pollution, access and affordability, the
distribution of property rights to water in society), yet the drivers range
from local to global (e.g., trade in virtual water, climate change, income
and wealth inequalities, power imbalances within and across countries,
failure to internalise costs and historical injustice, and more)
61
.
In
contrast to MDP, d
elivery on global water goals, while responding to
injustice in both the global North16 and global South62, is now constrained
by
planetary limits
63
and tipping points
64
. Among the many priorities
available, here we highlight three for consideration at the second UN
Water Conference
: improved WASH42; investments in infrastructure
(grey, green, and soft); and a shift in values, behaviours, and incentives
.
3.1
Towards safe drinking water and sanitation
Realising any of the SDG goals ranging from health to gender
equality requires transformational change in access to safe water
supply and sanitation for all
32
. A bespoke example in urban WASH
services is Cambodia’s Phnom Penh Water Supply Authority which
began reforms in 1993 that subsequently resulted in a ten-fold increase
in its water distribution network.
This change was accomplished by a
‘Swiss cheese model’ of cumulative actions to ensure WASH access65,
rather
than any single action. These actions included: inspired
leadership and institutional reform; a good understanding
of water
customers; a focus on reduced water losses; removal of illegal
connections; metering of all connections; a billing system that ensures
all who receive water pay for it; and donor-financed infrastructure
upgrades
66
.
Similarly
for potable purposes, we highlight innovations at Windhoek
(Namibia),
a pioneer in directly providing reclaimed water67. For other

15
locations such as Singapore; Orange County (USA); Wulpen (Belgium);
Essex (United Kingdom); and Perth (Australia), reclaimed and/or recycled
water is an essential part of water supply
66
.
While much can be learnt
from these examples, unfortunately, these places remain an
exception. For many urban residents, bespoke water reforms are
required to overcome shortfalls. In cities like Jakarta (Indonesia)
68
,
New Delhi (India)
69
, and Flint (Michigan USA)
70
, unsafe tap water
and incomplete sanitation and wastewater treatment services, are a
norm for those who cannot afford to pay for safe water access.
In contrast to urban experiences, enabling water and sanitation in rural areas
is more difficult due to scale, demand, and dispersed infrastructure,
institutions (formal and informal), and finance
14
. Rural water supply
experiences from African and Asian countries suggest a need to go beyond
single source supply and ‘think beyond pipes’ to encompass diversified
sources, ranging from private water vendors to rainfall. Enhancing access
to safe water in rural areas is also linked to strengthening cultural water
values and to the conservation of blue water sources (e.g., springs, lakes,
and wetlands)
14,32
.
3.2 Investing in the three infrastructures
Much of the focus on delivering water infrastructure since MDP has
been on grey infrastructure (e.g., pipes, channels, treatment, buildings).
While grey infrastructure is needed in both the global South and
North, we contend that
green (e.g., floodplains, wetlands, river channels,
lakes and estuaries, soil, aquifers) and soft infrastructure (e.g.,
governance, regulation, education, incentives, and communication) are
equally important priorities.
Grey infrastructure for WASH
Annual global subsidies of some US$
320 billion are provided for
delivering WASH services. Much of this expenditure goes to existing
water services. Thus, the poorest with the least (or no) access to a
centralised water system receive minimal support. Around 56% of
subsidies go to the highest quintile households by income, and 6% go to
the lowest quintile households
71
. Multiple informal markets and
decentralised systems of water provision are frequently ignored within
regulated and centralised pricing and infrastructure planning processes
32
.

16
By 2030, approximately US$ 1.5 trillion per year of capital investments
are required for grey infrastructure, with the most needed in the global
South
30
. Hutton and Varughese
72
estimated that the total annual capital
costs to achieve SDG targets 6.1 and 6.2 range from US$ 74–166 billion,
comprised of 37.6 billion for safe water, 19.5 billion for basic sanitation,
and 49 billion for safe faecal waste management.
The investments required to deliver SDG 6 will need multiple forms of
financing. Yet, global private sector investments in greywater
infrastructure in 2020 were US$ 17 billion
73
. To overcome this challenge,
the OECD recommends several financing pathways: improved soft
infrastructure around the delivery of WASH services, such as an
enabling environment (e.g., decrease in non-revenue water); strategic
investment planning; mobilising additional investment by governments;
restructuring risks and returns; and public-private partnerships leveraged
by larger public investments
73
.
Green infrastructure for WASH and more
Green infrastructure has long been practised in the water sector,
especially in conserving water catchments. For decades, cities such as
Tokyo and New York
74
have invested in protecting their watersheds to
maintain high-quality water supply sources
75
. The financial pay-off
has been a reduction in treatment, operation, and maintenance costs
23
.
A review of 309
large cities showed how degraded catchments
increased operations and maintenance costs by 53
±
5%, and
replacement capital costs by 44
±
14%
76
. Further, these benefits are not
just measured in dollars; examples from Kenya show that conserving
green infrastructure, such as natural springs, can reduce child mortality
by one-quarter
14
.
Green infrastructure is increasingly acknowledged for its importance
in delivering important ecosystem services (e.g., freshwater provision,
sediment regulation, flood mitigation and hydropower
production)
77,78
. In addition, such infrastructure also supports
cultural, recreational, and amenity values, while enabling flood
management, groundwater recharge and more
79
. Nature-based
investments in rain gardens, green rooves, and urban constructed
wetlands, can also offset some of the negative impacts of grey
infrastructure
77,80
. The
benefits of maintaining and conserving green

17
infrastructure are esti
mated to be worth US$3 trillion by 2050 in
avoided replacement costs for grey infrastructure
61
.
Soft infrastructure for collective action
As synthesised by the World Bank
42
and highlighted by the OECD
73
,
soft infrastructure reform is critical to progressing SDG 6 and other
SDG targets. According to the Water Policy Group, and others
42,81
,
three important failures that need to be overcome include: fragmented
water institu
tions; inadequate and inaccessible data and information; and
conflicts between
water user groups. In response to these challenges,
the World Bank has proposed a Policy, Institutions and Regulations
framework that connects data to WASH performance, reviews
existing laws and the incentives they provide, builds institutional
capacity, and establishes effective planning to respond to stresses and
shocks
42
. The lessons from this framework are applicable beyond
WASH but can be difficult to implement because of regulatory
capture, rent seeking, and corruption
82
.
Regulatory capture
83
occurs when state actors are ‘captured’ through a
process of mediated corruption
84
. Such capture is not necessarily illegal
and is facilitated by political donations, lobbying, ‘tit for tat’ favours,
and ‘revolving doors’ for decision-makers. This may be exacerbated by
rigid decision hierarchies
85
, but Singapore is an example where a top-
down corruption control has been highly effective. Singapore’s approach
has been supported by; laws (
Prevention of Corruption Act
, and
Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes
(Confiscation
of Benefits)
Act
), an independent judiciary, strict and timely
enforcement through the Corrupt Practice Investigation Bureau under
the Prime Minister’s Office, and a strict code of conduct for public
servants, with severe penalties for infringements.
Regulatory capture and rent-seeking influence how money is spent and
how decisions are prioritised
82
, noting that in some water sectors
corruption is widespread
86
and occurs in both the global North and
South
82
.
Responding to corruption r
equires bottom-up citizen vigilance
plus international and national civil society support
82
.
Anti-corruption measures must be fit for purpose. Nevertheless, we
highlight some priorities: promoting
decision-making at the scale where

18
it is most effective and least vulnerable to manipulation; meaningful
deliberations with all relevant stakeholders;
transparency in process and
decisions; and independent regulatory oversight.
3.3 Values, behaviours, and incentives
Water has multiple use values (e.g., WASH, agriculture, industry,
ecological
flows, etc.) observable from people’s behaviours, and non-use
or passive values
(e.g., aesthetic, spiritual, and bequest), which are not
often valued
30
. Measurement of these multiple values is
essential
because without estimates of non-market values (e.g., water in rivers
and
lakes left in situ) and cultural values of water, decision-makers will,
typically, only consider and/or prioritise market values (e.g., water
used to produce commercial crops)
30
.
Failure to fully value water in all uses, including
in situ
uses, has
contributed to the degradation of green infrastructure that is critically
important to deliver SDG 6, among other goals. Not, or only partially
valuing water,87
and not accounting for the external costs imposed on
others from water use, such as increased salinity, reduced stream flows
from irrigation, or water-related health problems, contributes to water
misallocation. That is, too much water is allocated for purposes that
generate market values (e.g., cotton production), and too little water is
allocated for non-market needs (e.g., maintaining ecosystem services).
This problem is most transparent with formal water markets (e.g., in
Australia, Chile, China, Spain, USA) which have been effective, when
there is adequate monitoring and compliance, at reallocating water based
on the marginal willingness to pay among competing water users.
Nevertheless, if the overall cap on water withdrawals in water markets
fails to adequately consider non-market values, total water withdrawals
are economically inefficient
88
. Failure to ensure an appropriate initial
allocation of water rights, especially for Indigenous custodians of land
89
,
and to prioritise drinking water needs for communities located on or
nearby rivers where water rights are traded, undermines the social
licence of water markets, and increases inequities
90
.
Water regulators influence water conservation behaviours in multiple
ways. For example, rationing constrains water availability or type of use
and modifies household water conservation behaviours by requiring
users to use less water. An alternative approach is to price non-essential

19
water uses and to provide a free allocation for essential uses and
subsidies for low-income water users. Higher volumetric prices for those
who can afford it can provide an incentive, but not an obligation, to
conserve water
91,92
where water use is metered. More equitable water
outcomes can be supported by ensuring that additional revenues from
higher water prices are directed to water suppliers to improve services
and/or to reduce the fixed charges of poorer households. Non-market
values and future water scarcity may also be included in r
egulated water
prices. For example, in Australia; in Canberra a water abstraction
charge
93
proxies the external costs of household water consumption
on downstream water users and in Sydney the volumetric price
increases by 35% when water storages fall below 60%.
In many cities in the global South there is inadequate household
coverage of centralised water services, and this is frequently
accompanied by supply interruptions
94
. Consequently, a proportion
of urban households, as much as 50% in some cities, either
supplement or completely obtain water independently (e.g., wells,
rivers) and/or through private water vendors. While the volumetric
price from water vendors can be much greater than centralised water
systems
95,96
, they do offer a valuable service in cities as diverse as
Dhaka, Bangladesh
97
to Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
96
.
4
Conclusions
Progress on achieving the goals at MDP, the MDGs, and SDGs is mixed.
Substantial progress has occurred on WASH, important transboundary
agreements and conventions have come into force (e.g., Ramsar,
Watercourses Convention) and some measures of water quality have
improved, mostly in the global North, since MDP. Nevertheless, none of
the SDG 6 targets will be delivered by 2030, increases in water-use
efficiency (SDG Target 6.4) alone will not ensure either sustainable
water withdrawals or reduce the number of people suffering from water
scarcity, and key data gaps remain.
Decades-long trends of reductions in the global area of wetlands and
forests, coupled with ever-increasing global blue water withdrawals,
pose increasing risks for human welfare and planetary health. A failure
to achieve the key goals of the first UN Water Conference, after almost
five decades, and an increasing riskier the world will cross a critical

20
tipping point, demand transformational change. For the second UN
Water Conference, and beyond, we highlight the importance of three
priorities: improved WASH; much greater and better prioritised
infrastructure (grey, green, and soft) investments; and a shift in values,
behaviours, and incentives. Without these and other changes that are
bespoke to the bio-physical and socio-economic contexts where they are
applied, we will fail to deliver ‘water for all’.
References
1. Dellapenna, J. W. & Gupta, J. Chapter X.1: The expanding
boundaries of water law. in Volume X: Water Law, Elgar
Encyclopedia of Environmental Law 1–6 (Edward Elgar Publishing
Limited, 2021). doi:10.4337/9781783477005.X.1
2. Biswas AK. From Mar del Plata to Kyoto: an analysis of global
water policy dialogue. Global Environmental Change. 14, 81-88
(2004). doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.11.003
3. Biswas AK. United nations water conference action plan.
International Journal of Water Resources Development. 4(3),148-
159 (2004). doi:10.1080/07900628808722385
4. United Nations. Report of the United Nations Water Conference,
Mar del Plata. E/CONF.70/29 . (United Nations Publications,
1977).https://documents-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N77/114/97/PDF/N7711497.pdf?Ope
nElement
5. WMO. Atlas of Mortality and Economic Losses from Weather,
Climate and Water Extremes (1970-2019). (2021).
6. IPCC. Summary for Policy Makers. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai
P, Pirani A, et al., eds. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press; 2021:3-32.
doi:0.1017/9781009157896.001
7. Grey, D. et al. Water security in one blue planet: twenty-first
century policy challenges for science. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering
Sciences 371, 20120406 (2013).
8. Grafton RQ, Williams J, Jiang Q. Possible pathways and tensions

21
in the food and water nexus. Earth’s Future 5, 449–462 (2017).
doi:10.1002/2016EF000506
9. United Nations. The United Nations World Water Development
Report 2022-Making the Invisible Visible. UNESCO; (UNESCO,
2022).
10. UNDESA. United Nations 2023 Water Conference Global Online
Stakeholder Consultation for the Proposed Themes of the
Interactive Dialogues: Summary Report. (2022).
11. World Bank. High and Dry Climate Change, Water, and the
Economy. (2016).
12. Sadoff, C. W. et al. Securing Water, Sustaining Growth: Report of
the GWP/OECD Task Force on Water Security and Sustainable
Growth. 180 (2015). https://agris.fao.org/agris-
search/search.do?recordID=QL2018000788
13. World Economic Forum. The Global Risks Report 2016. (2016).
https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2016
14. Hope, R., Thomson, P., Koehler, J. & Foster, T. Rethinking the
economics of rural water in Africa. Oxford Review of Economic
Policy 36, 171–190 (2020). doi:10.1093/oxrep/grz036
15. Jackson, S. Indigenous Peoples and Water Justice in a Globalizing
World. The Oxford Handbook of Water Politics and Policy 1,
(Oxford University Press, 2016).
doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199335084.013.5
16. Mueller, J. T. & Gasteyer, S. The widespread and unjust drinking
water and clean water crisis in the United States. Nature
Communications 12, 3544 (2021). doi:10.1038/s41467-021-23898-
z
17. Wyrwoll, P. R., Manero, A., Taylor, K. S., Rose, E. & Quentin
Grafton, R. Measuring the gaps in drinking water quality and policy
across regional and remote Australia. npj Clean Water 5, 32 (2022).
doi:10.1038/s41545-022-00174-1
18. Gupta, J. & Bosch, H. J. Changing ‘Ownership’ in Water Law:
Comparative Experiences in the Developing World. in Water Law
(eds. Dellapenna, J. W. & Gupta, J.) 315–328 (Edward Elgar
Publishing, 2021).
19. Gupta, J. & Bosch, H. SDG 6: Ensure Availability and Sustainable
Management of Water and Sanitation for All. in The Cambridge
Handbook of the Sustainable Development Goals and International
Law (eds. Ebbesson, J. & Hey, E.) 163–184 (Cambridge University
Press, 2022). doi:10.1017/9781108769631.008
20. Lai, T. & Tortajada, C. The Holy See and the Global

22
Environmental Movements. Frontiers in Communication 6, (2021).
doi:10.3389/fcomm.2021.715900
21. Gupta, J., Pahl-Wostl, C. & Zondervan, R. ‘Glocal’ water
governance: a multi-level challenge in the anthropocene. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5, 573–580 (2013).
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.09.003
22. Green, P. A. et al. Freshwater ecosystem services supporting
humans: Pivoting from water crisis to water solutions. Global
Environmental Change 34, 108–118 (2015).
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.06.007
23. Sabater, S. et al. Effects of human-driven water stress on river
ecosystems: a meta-analysis. Scientific Reports 8, 11462 (2018).
doi:10.1038/s41598-018-29807-7
24. Chichilnisky, G. & Heal, G. Economic returns from the biosphere.
Nature 391, 629–630 (1998). doi:10.1038/35481
25. United Nations. Report of the United National Conference on
Environment and Development-Rio de Janeiro. I, (1993).
26. United Nations. The Dublin Statement and Report of the
International Conference on Water and the Environment. 1–55
(1992).
27. OECD. Pricing Water Resources and Water and Sanitation
Services. (OECD Studies on Water, OECD Publishing, 2010).
doi:10.1787/9789264083608-en
28. Hurlbert, M. & Gupta, J. The adaptive capacity of institutions in
Canada, Argentina, and Chile to droughts and floods. Regional
Environmental Change 17, 865–877 (2017).doi:10.1007/s10113-
016-1078-0
29. OECD. OECD Principles on Water Governance. OECD Principles
on Water Governance (2015).
doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
30. UNESCO. The United Nations World Water Development Report
2021: Valuing water. (World Water Assessment Programme
(United Nations), UN Water, 2021).
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000375724
31. Martínez-Santos, P. Does 91% of the world’s population really
have “sustainable access to safe drinking water”? International
Journal of Water Resources Development 33, 514–533 (2017)..
doi:10.1080/07900627.2017.1298517
32. WHO, UNICEF & World Bank. State of the world’s drinking
water: an urgent call to action to accelerate progress on ensuring
safe drinking water for all. (2022).

23
33. UNICEF & WHO. State of the World’s Sanitation: An urgent call
to transform sanitation for better health, environments, economies
and societies. (2020).
34. UNEP. A Snapshot of the World ’s Water Quality: Towards a
global assessment. United Nations Environment Programme
(2016).
35. Podgorski, J. & Berg, M. Global threat of arsenic in groundwater.
Science 368, 845–850 (2020). doi:10.1126/science.aba1510
36. UN Environment. Framework for Freshwater Ecosystem
Management Series. 2, (2017).. www.unenvironment.org/water
37. Ma, T. et al. China’s improving inland surface water quality since
2003. Science Advances 6, (2020).doi:10.1126/sciadv.aau3798
38. Mostert, E. International co-operation on Rhine water quality
1945–2008: An example to follow? Physics and Chemistry of the
Earth, Parts A/B/C 34, 142–149 (2009).
doi:10.1016/j.pce.2008.06.007
39. Li, X. et al. Water Quality Analysis of the Yangtze and the Rhine
River: A Comparative Study Based on Monitoring Data from 2007
to 2018. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
106, 825–831 (2021). doi:10.1007/s00128-020-03055-w
40. European Environment Agency. Drivers of and pressures arising
from selected key water management challenges. A European
overview. (2021). doi:10.2800/059069
41. National Informatics Centre (NIC). National Mission for Clean
Ganga. (2022).
42. World Bank. Water Supply and Sanitation Policies, Institutions,
and Regulation. Water Supply and Sanitation Policies, Institutions,
and Regulation (World Bank Group, 2022). doi:10.1596/37922
43. Shah, T. & Rajan, A. Cleaning the Ganga: Rethinking irrigation is
key. Economic and Political Weekly 54, 57–66 (2019)
44. Indian Institutes of Technology. SWOT Analysis of the Ganga
Action Plan. (2011).
45. HLPW. An Agenda for Water Action. (2018).
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/17825HL
PW_Outcome.pdf
46. Brauman, K. A., Richter, B. D., Postel, S., Malsy, M. & Flörke, M.
Water depletion: An improved metric for incorporating seasonal
and dry-year water scarcity into water risk assessments. Elementa:
Science of the Anthropocene 4, 000083 (2016).
doi:10.12952/journal.elementa.000083
47. Scanlon, B. R., Jolly, I., Sophocleous, M. & Zhang, L. Global

24
impacts of conversions from natural to agricultural ecosystems on
water resources: Quantity versus quality. Water Resources
Research 43, (2007).doi:10.1029/2006WR005486
48. Pérez-Blanco, C. D., Loch, A., Ward, F., Perry, C. & Adamson, D.
Agricultural water saving through technologies: a zombie idea.
Environmental Research Letters 16, 114032 (2021).
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2fe0
49. Wheeler, S. A., Carmody, E., Grafton, R. Q., Kingsford, R. T. &
Zuo, A. The rebound effect on water extraction from subsidising
irrigation infrastructure in Australia. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 159, 104755 (2020).
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104755
50. Grafton, R. Q. et al. The paradox of irrigation efficiency. Science
361, 748–750 (2018). doi:10.1126/science.aat9314
51. Gupta, J. The Watercourses Convention, Hydro-hegemony and
Transboundary Water Issues. The International Spectator 51, 118–
131 (2016). doi:10.1080/03932729.2016.1198558
52. McInnes, R. J., Davidson, N. C., Rostron, C. P., Simpson, M. &
Finlayson, C. M. A Citizen Science State of the World’s Wetlands
Survey. Wetlands 40, 1577–1593 (2020).doi:10.1007/s13157-020-
01267-8
53. Simpson, M. et al. An updated citizen science state of the world’s
wetlands survey. Wetland Science & Practice 141–149 (2021).
https://issuu.com/societyofwetlandscientists/docs/july_2021_wsp_f
inal
54. Davidson, N. C. How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term
and recent trends in global wetland area. Marine and Freshwater
Research 65, 934 (2014). doi:10.1071/MF14173
55. Davidson, N. C. & Finlayson, C. M. Updating global coastal
wetland areas. Marine and Freshwater Research 70, 1195
(2019).doi:10.1071/MF19010
56. Hansen, M. C. et al. High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century
Forest Cover Change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).
doi:10.1126/science.1244693
57. Wada, Y., Van Beek, L. P. H. & Bierkens, M. F. P. Modelling
global water stress of the recent past: On the relative importance of
trends in water demand and climate variability. Hydrology and
Earth System Sciences 15, 3785–3808 (2011). doi:10.5194/hess-15-
3785-2011
58. Kummu, M. et al. The world’s road to water scarcity: shortage and
stress in the 20th century and pathways towards sustainability.

25
Scientific Reports 6, 38495 (2016). doi:10.1038/srep38495
59. Satterthwaite, D. The Millennium Development Goals and urban
poverty reduction: great expectations and nonsense statistics.
Environment and Urbanization 15, 179–190 (2003).
doi:10.1177/095624780301500208
60. Kitzmueller, K., Stacy, B. & G.M, M. Are we there yet? Many
countries don’t report progress on all SDGs according to the World
Bank’s new Statistical Performance Indicators. World Bank Blogs
(2021).
61. Vörösmarty, C. J. et al. A green-gray path to global water security
and sustainable infrastructure. Global Environmental Change 70,
102344 (2021).doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102344
62. Rammelt, C. F. et al. Impacts of meeting minimum access on
critical earth systems amidst the Great Inequality. Nature
Sustainability (2022). doi:10.1038/s41893-022-00995-5
63. Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human
development on a changing planet. Science 347, (2015).
doi:10.1126/science.1259855
64. McKay, D. I. A. et al. Exceeding 1.5°C global warming could
trigger multiple climate tipping points. Science 377, (2022).
doi:10.1126/science.abn7950
65. Reason, J. A systems approach to organizational error. Ergonomics
38, 1708–1721 (1995). doi:10.1080/00140139508925221
66. Biswas, A. K., Sachdeva, P. K. & Tortajada, C. Phnom Penh Water
Story. (Springer Singapore, 2021). doi:10.1007/978-981-33-4065-7
67. du Pisani, P. L. Surviving in an arid land: Direct reclamation of
potable water at Windhoek’s Goreangab Reclamation Plant. Arid
Lands. No.56 1–11.
68. Luo, P. et al. Water quality trend assessment in Jakarta: A rapidly
growing Asian megacity. PLoS ONE 14, e0219009 (2019).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0219009
69. Patel, P. P., Mondal, S. & Ghosh, K. G. Some respite for India’s
dirtiest river? Examining the Yamuna’s water quality at Delhi
during the COVID-19 lockdown period. Science of The Total
Environment 744, 140851 (2020).
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140851
70. Capone, D., Cumming, O., Nichols, D. & Brown, J. Water and
Sanitation in Urban America, 2017–2019. American Journal of
Public Health 110, 1567–1572 (2020).
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2020.305833
71. Andres, L. A. et al. Doing More with Less: Smarter Subsidies for

26
Water Supply and Sanitation. World Bank (2019).
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/330841560517317845/
Doing-More-with-Less-Smarter-Subsidies-for-Water-Supply-and-
Sanitation
72. H Hutton, G. & Varughese, M. The Costs of Meeting the 2030
Sustainable Development Goal Targets on Drinking Water,
Sanitation, and Hygiene. (2016). www.worldbank.org/water
73. OECD. Financing a water secure future. (OECD, 2022).
doi:10.1787/a2ecb261-en
74. Ashendorff, A. et al. Watershed protection for New York City’s
supply. Journal - American Water Works Association 89, 75–88
(1997). doi:10.1002/j.1551-8833.1997.tb08195.x
75. Wagner, W. et al. Sustainable Watershed Management: An
International Multi-Watershed Case Study. AMBIO: A Journal of
the Human Environment 31, 2–13 (2002). doi:10.1579/0044-7447-
31.1.2
76. McDonald, R. I., Weber, K. F., Padowski, J., Boucher, T. &
Shemie, D. Estimating watershed degradation over the last century
and its impact on water-treatment costs for the world’s large cities.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 9117–9122
(2016). doi:10.1073/pnas.1605354113
77. Chung, M. G., Frank, K. A., Pokhrel, Y., Dietz, T. & Liu, J. Natural
infrastructure in sustaining global urban freshwater ecosystem
services. Nature Sustainability 4, 1068–1075
(2021).doi:10.1038/s41893-021-00786-4
78. Tortajada, C., Koh, R., Bindal, I. & Lim, W.-K. Compounding
focusing events as windows of opportunity for flood management
policy transitions in Singapore. Journal of Hydrology 599, 126345
(2021).doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126345
79. Williams, J. et al. The three-infrastructures framework and water
risks in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Australasian Journal
of Water Resources 1–20 (2022).
doi:10.1080/13241583.2022.2151106
80. Anderson, C. C., Renaud, F. G., Hanscomb, S. & Gonzalez-Ollauri,
A. Green, hybrid, or grey disaster risk reduction measures: What
shapes public preferences for nature-based solutions? Journal of
Environmental Management 310, 114727 (2022).
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114727
81. Water Policy Group. Global Water Policy Report 2021: Listening
to National Water Leaders. (2021).
http://waterpolicygroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2021-

27
Global-Water-Policy-Report-4-Feb-2022.pdf
82. Transparency International. Global Corruption Report 2008:
Corruption in the Water Sector. (Cambridge University Press,
2008).
83. Grafton, R. Q. & Williams, J. Rent-seeking behaviour and
regulatory capture in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia.
International Journal of Water Resources Development 36, 484–
504 (2020). doi:10.1080/07900627.2019.1674132
84. Thompson, D. F. Mediated Corruption: The Case of the Keating
Five. American Political Science Review 87, 369–381
(1993).doi:10.2307/2939047
85. Swyngedouw, E. & Boelens, R. “… And Not a Single Injustice
Remains”: Hydro-Territorial Colonization and Techno-Political
Transformations in Spain. in Water Justice 115–133 (Cambridge
University Press, 2018). doi:10.1017/9781316831847.008
86. Repetto, R. Skimming the water: rent-seeking and the performance
of public irrigation systems. Research Report - World Resources
Institute (Washington) 4, (1986).
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Ski
mming+the+water%3A+Rent-
seeking+and+the+performance+of+public+irrigation+systems+&bt
nG=
87. Garrick, D. E. et al. Valuing water for sustainable development.
Science 358, 1003–1005 (2017). doi:10.1126/science.aao4942
88. Grafton, R. Q., Horne, J. & Wheeler, S. A. Rethinking Water
Markets. in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental
Science (Oxford University Press, 2022).
doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.800
89. Hartwig, L. D., Jackson, S., Markham, F. & Osborne, N. Water
colonialism and Indigenous water justice in south-eastern Australia.
International Journal of Water Resources Development 1–34
(2021). doi:10.1080/07900627.2020.1868980
90. Grafton, R. Q. Policy review of water reform in the Murray-Darling
Basin, Australia: the “do’s” and “do’nots”. Australian Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics 63, 116–141
(2019).doi:10.1111/1467-8489.12288
91. Grafton, R. Q., Chu, L. & Wyrwoll, P. The paradox of water
pricing: dichotomies, dilemmas, and decisions. Oxford Review of
Economic Policy 36, 86–107 (2020).doi:10.1093/oxrep/grz030
92. Grafton, R. Q., Ward, M. B., To, H. & Kompas, T. Determinants of
residential water consumption: Evidence and analysis from a 10-

28
country household survey. Water Resources Research 47, (2011).
doi:10.1029/2010WR009685
93. Chu, L. & Grafton, R. Q. Dynamic water pricing and the risk
adjusted user cost (RAUC). Water Resources and Economics 35,
100181 (2021). doi:10.1016/j.wre.2021.100181
94. Kjellén, M. & Mcgranahan, G. Informal Water Vendors and the
Urban Poor. Human Settlementss Discussion Paper 3, (2006).
95. Bhatia, R. & Falkenmark, M. Water Resource Policies and the
Urban Poor: Innovative Approaches and Policy Imperatives. The
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World
Bank (1993).
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/11073146831949404
0/pdf/multi-page.pdf
96. Kjellen, M. Complementary Water Systems in Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania: The Case of Water Vending. International Journal of
Water Resources Development 16, 143–154 (2000).
doi:10.1080/07900620048626
97. Khan, H. R. & Siddique, Q. I. Urban Water Management Problems
in Developing Countries with Particular Reference to Bangladesh.
International Journal of Water Resources Development 16, 21–33
(2000). doi:10.1080/07900620048545
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO) that provided a
partial subsidy for HB, SF and NS.