The second meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) for a global Plastics Treaty began in Paris, France on the 29th of May. The meeting is scheduled to continue until June 2nd.  This follows from a resolution passed on the 2nd of March 2022 during the fifth United National Environmental Assembly (UNEA) in Nairobi. The resolution requested the UNEA President to convene an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee tasked with developing an international legally binding treaty on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, by the end of 2024.

Prior to the opening of the session, on the 16th of May, UNEP had released a report examining some of the possible approaches to respond to the global problem of plastics pollution. This report emphasised the need for three key shifts, i.e. reuse: the transition from single uses of plastic to multiple uses, recycling: increasing the degree to which plastics are collected and recycled, and reorientation: shifting the market towards more sustainable alternatives. 

A key issue during the negotiations so far has been the difference of opinion between parties such as the European Union wishing to limit the production of plastic, and countries such as the United States and Saudi Arabia, wishing to encourage circularity (recycling and reuse). The evidence base for the risks of plastics to the environment and human health is a young and emerging field, but one author for instance mentions that an estimated 200 million tons of plastic end up on landfills and some 15 million tons end up in the ocean every year.  This is likely to be a low estimate, as (according to Plastics Europe) world plastics production has grown to 367 Megatons (MT) per year, of which only 9% is recycled, i.e. 334 MT per year ends up as waste. At the current rate of growth of plastics production, it has been predicted that plastics will grow to represent 15% of the global carbon budget. The outcomes of the plastics treaty are therefore strongly interlinked with global climate goals.

One of the first studies of microplastic contamination in bottled water from 2018 showed that in 259 samples of bottled water across 19 countries, 93% of the samples contained microplastics and each sample contained an average of 325 microplastics per litre. Similarly, one of the first studies into wash water discharge from plastics recycling facilities found that between 6 and 100 million microplastics particles per m³ were released into wash water during the washing process. With filtration, the majority of these particles were removed, but microplastics smaller than 5 nanometres in diameter were not removed. The study recommended incorporating microplastics into water quality regulations.              

Tobias Schmitz: At the last UN Water Conference in Mar del Plata in 1977, member states prepared national plans in advance and ultimately met for a period of two weeks. In the 2023 UN Water Conference, the agenda was fairly open and the meeting lasted three days. This puts quite a lot of pressure on achieving the outcomes in a short space of time. At the same time, attendance was unexpectedly high with a broad range of stakeholders beyond individual member states. To what extent are you satisfied from the point of view of UN Water with what has been achieved in New York? 

Federico Properzi: Thank you. UN Water is the collection of all the members and therefore when I say we, we are referring to the UN Water family, including the custodian agencies. As to 1977: those were very different times, communications were way different, and everything was printed in the time before our present technology like computers and travel, so it all took time for the delegations to exchange and agree on something. So that's why conferences in those days were different and indeed the conference lasted for almost 2 weeks. Also, the intention was to have a negotiated outcome and a declaration, so member states really needed time to sit together and discuss in person. And in addition, another main difference with respect to New York 2023 was that it was only a discussion among member states and without stakeholders.

Tobias Schmitz: Indeed, and New York was a multi stakeholder process…

Federico Properzi: Yes, it [Mar del Plata] was a very traditional UN conference. If New York had been geared towards a political declaration, certainly members states would have been negotiating far in advance of the conference. So, the fact that the New York conference was only for three days does not make it less important. And of course, it felt very intense: I mean, look at the side events, think there were more than 1000 requests of which only a couple of hundreds could be accommodated inside the UN. Therefore, a lot was happening outside the building to accommodate stakeholders who would not necessarily go to a UN conferences – and it happened in parallel with New York week so there was a lot happening in Brooklyn, in Queens, etcetera, far from the midtown area.

But what really happened was that it was the first time in many years that Member States and the other stakeholders came together under the UN flag to discuss water issues and first of all share what everyone is doing. There was no declaration, and this was by design. We do however have the Water Action Agenda, I think this was a very smart move by the Netherlands and Tajikistan: everyone is making voluntary commitments and it creates this one place where you have all these actions together: we are all united under the same space and we're all working on the same agenda. And in that way the dialogue has commenced, and it's been a good opportunity.

Tobias Schmitz: The UN-Water family has come a long way in preparing the road for the implementation of SDG 6 since 2015: identifying pilot countries for the testing of the indicators and data reporting mechanisms for the indicators under SDG 6, validating the methods, and subsequently reaching out to countries to support them on a data drive towards an integrated monitoring system that embraces the water cycle. At the same time, we are now three years into the implementation of the Global Acceleration Mechanism for SDG 6. Are you satisfied with the progress being made with data collection and implementation, and what more can be done currently by the UN to support SDG 6 implementation? 

Federico Properzi: We have known for some time that SDG 6 is off track, and in July 2020 we launched the SDG 6 Global Acceleration Framework, which has now established itself as an overarching framework which looks at some cross cutting accelerators, and one reason for that is by not mentioning sectors, we are breaking with the silos in in our sector. And you know, this was done on purpose. Now of course we do have the structure of the dialogues from the conference. So, we have two ways of cutting and analysing what we do. And when it comes to what more can we do: of course this was the essence of the conference: we have the reports from the interactive dialogues and they are leading the way as well as the summary of the President of the General Assembly. These are all useful, and financing is also important, but a lot is about governance: information is available, but it is spread out, and what is lacking is global policy coherence.

So this is something that we'll keep coming back to – it was mentioned in the closing session of the conference that we need another conference because currently it is the closest thing that we can actually get to achieve global policy coherence: as you know, the water sector does not have a dedicated global policy space. And it takes it takes a lot of effort to organise a conference at UN level: it takes 3 years from the moment a resolution has been passed.  

Tobias Schmitz: In New York, more than 800 commitments have been made under the umbrella of the Water Action Agenda. As we move towards The High-Level Political Forum in July this year, what are your views on the ways in which an integrated water action agenda can be crafted out of all the commitments on the table? 

Federico Properzi: Coherence is of course a very nice thing to have, and certainly the UN family has been working very hard to bring the different actors together. The SDG 6 Global Acceleration Framework is a good example of transversal thinking, i.e.  agreeing on some common agenda points which can take things forward right across the board and independently of sectors.

What we are really pushing for is integration at country level: we are linking with the UN resident coordinators at country level who are responsible for cooperation at the country level and aligning the expertise of UN agencies and other partners, based on the guiding national policy documents on sustainable development and a whole of government approach, rather than operating at individual project level.

You mentioned the Special Envoy for Water: as you know, 149 Member States are calling for that, and in his closing remarks, the Secretary General stated that he will be considering that. So we will see if that happens: a Special Envoy would be a great ambassador for all of us, and especially is someone is chosen who can take on the UN machinery without pushing for sectoral agenda’s: we need a unifying figure, which I believe is certainly possible. But we really need that leadership.

Tobias Schmitz: Given again the commitments made in New York, to what extent is UN Water expected to assist in monitoring the implementation of the various engagements beyond the strict confines of SDG 6, and how would you see reporting on this agenda moving forward? 

Federico Properzi: We are working very closely with UNDESA for everything related to the management of the Water Action Agenda platform, supporting the design and screening of incoming commitments. And of course, the special event in July is jointly convened between us. As I was mentioning before, the beauty of the water action agenda is that it puts all these actions together in one public space. It may not be very easy to browse or commitments, but they are there in the public. UNDESA is planning to produce an analysis of the voluntary commitments, contacting the 800 commitments registered, and ask for a progress update on what's happening. Probably, only a certain percentage of the 800 will respond, but all these responses will be in the public space. We see that benchmarking and peer pressure in this context is a real tool.

When everything becomes public, all sectors of society can check in with that and encourage the implementation of those commitments. It is a soft form of accountability, based on a voluntary mechanism. So, when it comes to the follow up and review of all of this, we see this happening in different ways: there is the annual pivotal SDG 6 / Water Action Agenda Special Event of HLPF, but there will be opportunities in other sectors. For example, at the upcoming Food Systems Stocktake this July in Rome.

Tobias Schmitz: Given the fact that water is expected to occupy a more prominent position in the global agenda, with the possible appointment of a UN Envoy for Water and other such mechanisms, to what extent could there be a need for a strengthening of UN Water as an interagency coordinating mechanism and given political support for this, what kinds of things could be done to achieve it? 

Federico Properzi: The possible strengthening of UN Water has been mentioned for a few years. During the conference we heard a few actors - Member States and others - calling for the strengthening of UN Water. Now this is a big ball in court, and we are waiting for the synthesis report which will discuss current status and trends. But the real value of the synthesis report is that it will respond to the level of ambition that has been pushed out at the conference. So, UN Water will be responding to the UN system's response to what has been discussed at the conference. Strengthening has been discussed, but we need to be clear about what is meant by strengthening: it means strengthening the UN agencies united under UN Water as well as the mutual coordination capacity between the agencies. Often it is a question of resources and individuals, some may be overstretched and nevertheless need to coordinate, attend meetings, etc. So in that respect the synthesis report will indicate what is possible within current mandates, but it will also present what could be achieved with additional mandates. But ultimately it is for the Member States to decide on the course of action. 

Tobias Schmitz: Actually, the other day I came across a new harmonisation initiative between the World Food Programme and the United Nations Environmental Programme to work closer together and find synergies on both water and food security, starting by exploring shared mandates and exploring efficiency gains. So I think this is what you are talking about: how can the whole system think through its internal efficiencies, its internal cross linkages, etc. Am I right?     

Federico Properzi: Yes, we basically need the UN leadership as the main driver, and of course the UN leadership responds and reports to the Member States. So, its an iterative process. So I think that July is going to be an exciting month!  

Tobias Schmitz: Looking back at the UN 2023 Water Conference, we had a 3-day window to catch up on the last 46 years since the last official UN water conference in Mar del Plata. So, it was a huge opportunity but also a big challenge to get the most out of it.  From your perspective, how did you feel it was organised? Did we squeeze out of it what we could have?

Lesha Witmer: Actually, it is quite intriguing. Of course, we knew that three days was not going to be enough after 46 years.  We knew that no way you could really capture developments and concerns of fort-six years (or even 5 years – the last discussion on SDG6 in the HLPF) in three days. So, we knew that. But we also know that it had taken a lot of persuasion to even get a UN conference, since there are many diplomats who would have taken any excuse not to engage. So, the fact that we even got the resolution passed for the conference was already a sort of small miracle.

The second part, which is also interesting, is that states did not have to negotiate, and everything was voluntary. Many of us were very disappointed with this, but to be very honest the mere fact that they did not have to negotiate actually created a conversation. Diplomats would normally have held their cards close to their chest and avoided discussions and hard commitments. So, through this, suddenly many themes could aactually be discussed. From my perspective it was good to see much more attention for capacity development and education at different levels, the need for enhancing the workforce / more qualified jobs, more knowledge exchange (Incl. Citizen Science and Indigenous / traditional) and getting money “to the ground”. or were not met with very defensive reactions (transboundary cooperation e.g.) and looking at future exchanges at UN level.

Also, we had not only the official representatives of the countries in in New York, but there was a large contingent of technical people from the capitals, and the atmosphere in the end was a blessing. Having said that, of course now we need to make sure that some of the interesting stuff that was discussed gets some official recognition and follow up. So that's the big, big challenge for the next High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) in July 2023, there is also then the official SDG 6 evaluation, so in that respect it is good timing. The HLPF can actually open the gate for the next step. So, what we do in the next two months is crucial. We are lucky to have some chairs of key processes at the UN who are very supportive and are working very, very hard and who are in favour of the process. It is crucial that the people chairing / convening those meetings are in our corner and have been brave enough to put some issues out there for discussion.

Next year I don't know who will be there: there will be another President of the General Assembly, ECOSOC etcetera. So, we also have to take advantage of the fact that these people are in those seats at the moment and willing to support the process.  And then another remarkable thing, which people may not fully appreciate is that there were some 150 signatures in favour of the appointment of a Special Envoy for Water.  But most of the major countries were missing: China was not there, Russia was not there, the US was not there, India was not there, Türkiye was not there. So, this creates a situation because the UN is always trying to do things by consensus. And in the end, they just counted the numbers and said OK, one country, one vote, 151 out of 193. You know what? We're just going to do it. Which is very brave. So that tells you something about the leadership, who thought, what the heck, let’s just do it. So that was a very interesting move politically.

And then there is still the ‘minor’ issue of who gets to write the Terms of Reference for the Special Envoy and what is in it That is a very interesting discussion going forward. The mandate should incorporate to come up with ideas for a more structural, long-term approach.

Tobias Schmitz: Let me just try and tease that out with you a little bit more: I remember at the 9th World Water Forum in Dakar, the attempt was to change the way in which World Water Forums are run, i.e., by focusing the discussions on four main themes, decompartmentalising discussions and ending up with a focused list of agreements encapsulated in a Blue Deal. Now that did not work, and as you have said, it was replaced by a completely voluntary system without formal negotiations and people were free to put on the table whatever they wanted. So, the net result was a huge and very varied set of different commitments. The question now is, how do you bring all of that together and ccoordinate it in some way so that it becomes, less fragmented and more systemic.

Lesha Witmer: Indeed: but the political process in Dakar was very “weak” and not inclusive. We are dealing with different players at different levels and both small scale and large scale. In fact, I am not completely sure that some of it is not a repeat of what they already committed to before – which in itself is helpful in a way because it reminds people that something needs to be done, and governments especially governments need to ‘do lists’, and usually on the short term because there is an awareness of the next elections, new leadership, etc.

The Water action agenda as it stands now has two interesting functions: one is that it is a mix of levels, so it is a multi stakeholder agenda. Previously, if you saw these commitment drives it was government, government, government. And now it is a mixture, with the UN system, national governments, local governments, NGO's, and even some very small civil society organisations that caught on. And I think that the second interesting part of it is that it is not just focused on asking for money. The agenda was actually asking, what are you going to do? And whether you will do that vvoluntarily, or in kind with the help of somebody else. So, you don't have to put a financial number to it, which I think for some organisations was really a relief, right? Because their assets are their human resources on the ground. And therefore, they could actually say, OK, this is what we could do, and they don’t have to bring a bag of money. As for the monitoring, that is a still a big challenge for a lot of people. But I do know that there is some work being done behind the scenes to come up with some kind of a proposal on how to monitor all this in July. So, there is certainly some attention for this, but wether they will succeed, I don't know yet.

And you know, my main first instinct was to say: dear people. dear co-chairs, facilitate the monitoring.  Start reminding people now, today, and not in in half a year from now, that they did make a commitment and have to make and publish a plan – it is a pity that the proposal for national water roadmaps was not taken up more.

Tobias Schmitz: Well, I suppose that brings us to the preparations for the HLPF: what are the kinds of things that need to be done? What would you say to the readers of The Water Diplomat in terms of what organisations need to do to maximise what has been achieved in New York. You mentioned monitoring, you mentioned the fact that we have willing leadership, and there is a resolution on the special envoy, there are some positives to be worked on. Also, we have an open and multistakeholder stakeholder process. So now what? What can we do with all of this to get the most out of the HLPF.

Lesha Witmer:  Well, to go back to my earlier comments, it is important to agree on the mandate of the Special Envoy: Guttierez needs to be advised whom to appoint and with what mandate. The mandate of the special Envoy should actually be to develop a proposal or two or three alternatives for the future structure of water within the UN. So when are we meeting again? How are we getting continuity in the conversation? So give us some ideas on the Special Envoy, on how to proceed.

Where are we going from here? This is politically very tricky, because you are asking for a structure in the UN, which is a big ask. But on the other hand, if we don't do that, then you know, we keep scrambling and having a few people working hard to get something off the ground. So, one of the ideas that this floating around is to actually create a functional Commission under ECOSOC on water. That is actually very easy to do because the structure and the procedures are in place. Everybody knows what it is, especially the negotiators in New York, they know how it functions. They have people in their missions that are responsible for this type of work. The second element is that it's cheap and equitable, it would go into the general budget of the United Nations. We did a calculation two or three years ago, and it turned out that it would cost some 0.01% of the UN budget. So, it would hardly even feature in the financial reports.  

A big elephant in the room of course is the mandate of UN Water. Because UN Water is not an agency, it is not a programme, it is “just” a coordination mechanism for the UN agencies which have water in their mandates. So, everybody keeps saying OK, strengthen UN Water - and then I say OK, but that means that 32 UN agencies have to agree to relinquish part of their mandate to UN Water. That could be a long process, but if we want to create a stronger mechanism, we might need to do that.

Another thing that is important is the chair’s summary: we need to actually translate some of the conclusions in the chair’s summary into something that the HLPF can decide on. I don't know yet what that will be, but that is certainly something everybody's watching for. How are we going to do that and will we be on time to start messaging that there must be a resolution on the follow up in the General Assembly in September. You have to start talking about that latest in July.

Tobias Schmitz: Maybe I can also just sidestep a little bit l and ask you about the temperature with regard to women and water diplomacy. There is a women and water diplomacy network, in which there is peer to peer learning for female water diplomats especially from elders who have earned their stripes. How did you find the UN Water conference from the perspective of gender?

Lesha Witmer: Some very good questions, because the opinions are very diverse. I had some contacts with colleagues and some of them are not happy that less than 20 sessions were actually labelled as gender incorporating and focused. I would respond by saying that that does not mean that it is not being discussed. Because I was there, I know. For PR reasons, convenors did not advertise the “gender” component to get a better, diverse audience. And then went ahead and talked about it.   In terms of the leadership of the conference, there were three men and two women. The President of the General Assembly happens to be a male. The current president of ECOSOC happens to be a male. I thought it wasn't as bad as it has been in the past and the current leadership seems to be gender sensitive.  It is an issue that you cannot solve by saying that we have to gender mainstream. It means that for crucial jobs, when they go up for election, the issue must be pushed; this is an overall issue that takes time and willingness.

As to the women and water diplomacy drive: of course, I do like it. However, my concern is that “diplomacy” to my mind is defined too narrowly. There are loads of women being diplomats but not (formally) working for the government. Let’s expand that a bit?

I was actually pleasantly surprised by the number of women that were there as delegates, speakers (not only support staff). My personal estimate was that it was around 40%. Which is high.

Tobias Schmitz: Right. And that is a personal estimate, right?

Lesha Witmer: Yes, from my personal experience attending many different sessions and observing. I have actually asked for the official numbers from the UNDESA, which is not easy for them: the only thing they can give us is the number of males and females that registered. But of course, they don't know how many actually accessed the different sessions in the building and outside (they may want to learn from Stockholm WWW). So, yes, it’s an approximation. But beyond the slow procedures of the UN itself, the visa process for the U.S. ended up being a huge hurdle for a lot of people. 

On the 5th of May, the World Food Programme (WFP) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) signed an agreement designed to strengthen cooperation around various aspects touching on water and food security. The agreement was the culmination of some two years of preparatory work towards collaboration between the two UN bodies, as well as the product of a learning process between two very different organisational cultures. It was signed by Cindy McCain, the Executive Director of WFP, and Inger Andersen the Executive Director of UNEP.  Specifically, the two organisations will expand collaboration on topics such as climate change adaptation, nature friendly food systems, water resources management and ecosystems restoration.

At the event, WFP’s Executive Director Cindy McCain stated: “Food and water go hand in hand: we urgently need to restore our ecosystems and scale up climate adaptation programs to ensure future generations have the basic resources needed to grow enough food ... [] ... WFP’s global footprint and operational scale, combined with UNEP’s world-class scientific expertise, will help governments, communities, and families on the frontlines of the climate crisis better protect themselves. Our partnership will reduce humanitarian needs and support long-term solutions to hunger.”

In an interview with The Water Diplomat WFP’s Sibi Lawson-Marriott further stated: ”WFP often finds itself in very remote and marginalised areas where food needs are the highest, and while we have done a lot in the field of humanitarian responses, lately we have seen that in the absence of other complementary measures, the needs will continue to spiral and skyrocket beyond the means of national government or the international community to meet. Therefore, the local food system itself must be resilient, and climate related shocks, in particular changes to the hydrological cycle, are constraining food systems far more than we had previously understood or articulated. UNEP was a logical partner in this, and we are currently focusing on how UNEP’s knowledge on ecosystems can be applied to the field for perhaps non-traditional users of such information through measures such as climate adaptation at scale, restoration of ecosystems and early warning on floods.”  

Speaking at the signing ceremony, UNEP CEO Inger Andersen stated: “If we work more closely together, we can create real, meaningful impact. We can enhance climate mitigation and adaptation. We can support vulnerable populations to address nature-induced conflicts and natural disasters. We can maintain healthy, productive, and resilient ecosystems. We can deliver on both our mandates and reduce the vicious cycle of humanitarian and environmental crises.”

In an earlier statement, Inger Andersen had highlighted the effects of climate change on food production, whether in the form of droughts as in the case of the Horn of Africa, or in the case of floods in low lying delta’s as a result of sea level rise and greater intensity of storms. In 2019, she stated, of the 33 million people internally displaced, climate change was a factor in the displacement of over 70 per cent of cases. Looking forward, some estimates indicate that by 2050, climate change could internally displace 216 million people.  This, she said, is also related to water challenges: by 2050 an estimated 6 billion people will face regular water scarcity due to climate change, pollution, and increasingly unsustainable levels of production and consumption.

Therefore, she argued, WFP and UNEP should work together on climate resilience and adaptation through investments in nature-based solutions and early warning systems. A second area for collaboration is nature-positive, climate friendly food systems. And thirdly, she proposed collaboration on integrated water resource management for healthy food systems.    

Speaking to The Water Diplomat for UNEP, Lis Mullin Bernhardt further stated that although UNEP has a global focus, there is also a strong regional awareness about the region in which the offices are located, i.e., its headquarters in Kenya, but also offices in Sudan and Somalia. As a result, UNEP has done a lot of work to test nature-based solutions locally in Somalia and Sudan in order to help retain water during periods of drought, but also to respond appropriately in times of flooding, which is becoming increasingly common.  One example of joint work already done with WFP is a rapid assessment of the so-called ASAL Counties [the arid and semi-arid lands in northern and eastern Kenya] to look at how nature-based water retention systems could be applied for the benefit of resilient food systems. This is an area of work which could be built on immediately, and which might form the point of departure of the programme going forward.                

Introduction

The March 2023 Water Conference brought together 170 Member States under the aegis of the United Nations, around various ‘hot’ topics, such as the global governance of the sector, the crisis of access to water, water as common good of humanity, the highly insufficient funding of the sector, particularly in its humanitarian dimension (only 30% of United Nations Humanitarian Response Plans were funded in 2022) and the overall lack of data on the resource.

Because it is cross cutting, the water sector is poorly coordinated (it features in twenty targets spread across eleven of the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda) as well as poorly governed, poorly represented, not very vocal, underfunded and undervalued. During the conference, the NGO Action Against Hunger was on site with its partners and allies, the French Water Partnership, the Water Coalition, the Butterfly Effect, the Global WASH Cluster, members of the WASH Roadmap and the World Water Council, and the political representatives of France and Switzerland in particular, to defend the specific role of humanitarian action in the sector.

Positive points

The conference in itself was an historic event, being the first such intergovernmental conference uniquely dedicated to water since 1977. The states and international organizations gathered in New York widely recognized the scale of the water crisis and expressed their concern in the face of water shortages, floods, loss of ecosystems and the impacts of the climate crisis affecting the four corners of the globe. The cries of alarm have multiplied from the participants, while 2 billion people still do not have access to drinking water and 3.6 billion people are deprived of adequate sanitation.

The positive points that emerged from the conference, from our point of view, are first of all the strong government representation, which illustrates the concerns of the states in the face of the multiple demographic, access, climatic, health and environmental issues. France also invited two ministers to this event (Mr. Christophe Béchu, Minister for Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion as well as Ms. Berengère Couillard, Secretary of State to the Minister, in charge of Ecology). France took advantage of the conference to sign the Call to Action https://www.washroadmap.org/calltoaction.html of the WASH Roadmap https://www.washroadmap.org , committing it to the dimension humanitarian aid as well as to improving the overall governance of the water sector.

The major subjects of the development of the water sector were on the agenda of the exchanges. The humanitarian angle, brought to the table by NGOs such as Action Against Hunger, has also made it possible to recall the stakes of the sector in its most acute dimension, illustrated by the violations of the Geneva conventions in conflict zones (in Ukraine today for example), but also in the "banality of evil", when approximately 2 million children under the age of 5 die each year from water-borne diseases or even when defecation in the open air is still practiced by nearly 800 millions of people around the world with the well-known objectives of dignity, security and public health.

United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. A. Guterres, has announced that there will be a “follow-up” to the conference, which can be seen as an encouraging sign ahead of the 2023 autumn UN Conference marking the midterm mandate of the 2030 agenda.

Finally, the massive participation of more than 6,500 participants, and the significant media coverage of the event are also to be welcomed, both locally and internationally.

Negative points

The March 2023 UN Water Conference did not really have a political roadmap (apart from being halfway through the water decade), nor was a joint declaration expected or a binding treaty envisaged. Its aim was to bring together the actors of a disparate and poorly coordinated sector, rather than to propose concrete actions.

The main deliverable of the conference was the Water Action Agenda Water Action Agenda, bringing together voluntary commitments from Member States and water stakeholders. To date, 825 such commitments have been recorded. However, these commitments, disparate, heterogeneous and non-binding, do not in any way constitute the collective, strategic and holistic response expected by civil society in the face of the global water crisis.

Moreover, the declarations produced have not been quantified or budgeted, while we know that the world will have to quadruple its ambitions and resources in favour of the sector to achieve universal water and sanitation coverage by 2030.

Finally, despite a forward-looking closing statement (and the upcoming UN summit in September), the appointment of the long-awaited Special Envoy for Water has not been formalized or even announced, much to the disappointment of NGOs. This measure demanded by 156 States (France has largely supported the creation of this position and announced that it will contribute to its financing from Germany from the year 2023) will, however, be given consideration by Mr. Antonio Guterres.

Follow-up points for NGOs

The presence of international NGOs, including Action Against Hunger, at the conference, will at least enable monitoring of the States' commitments to the Water Action Agenda (in particular, as far as France is concerned, on the themes of cross-border cooperation, demand official appointment of a special envoy for water by the Secretary General of the United Nations, the promotion of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) and the climate change agenda.

The follow-up point which seems most essential to the representatives of civil society, including Action contre la Faim, is to continue the dissemination of the Call to Action among humanitarian organizations and Member States, so as to continue to exert pressure on the Secretary General. of the United Nations for the appointment of the Special Envoy, imperatively expected in 2023 and ideally during the UN summit of September 19th and 20th on the mid-term review of the 2030 Agenda. This first brick in the construction of governance of the sector is an essential prerequisite for addressing the second tranche of the Sustainable Development Goals in a visible, coherent and strategic manner.

In April, the Women in Water Diplomacy Network (WWDN) published its 2023 After Action Report which reviews the activities of both its Water Diplomacy Symposium as well as the network’s engagement in the UN 2023 Water Conference. Following the expression in 2022 of its strategic objectives for the period 2022-2017, the WWDN embarked on the implementation of its five point strategy to improve gender equality in high-level decision making in transboundary basins. The strategy is rooted in women’s leadership in regional dialogues around shared waters, with an overall focus on achieving positive outcomes for implications for regional peace and human security.

In the run up to the UN 2023 Water Conference, the WWDN organised a pre-conference Water Diplomacy Symposium to create space for and enable consultations within the network so as to exchange information on critical themes related to transboundary basins globally, and water insecure and conflict sensitive basins in particular. Beyond this, the symposium sought to particularly elevate voices of women water diplomats. At a symbolic level, the network members wore a collaboratively designed gold ‘clip’ throughout the UN Water Conference to bring collective positive visibility to the cause of equal participation and influence of women in water related decision making. Some key leaders such as Linda Thomas Greenfield, US Ambassador to the United Nations, Phan Thi Thu Huong, representing indigenous communities in Vietnam, and Johanna Sumuvuori, State Secretary Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland, gave high visibility to this initiative.  

From its origins as a women’s network in the Nile River Basin, the WWDN has expanded geographically in a short space of time to include women active in river basins in amongst others Central Asia, North and South America, and Southern Africa. During the UN 2023 Water Conference the WWDN held a side event entitled ‘Elevating Critical Voices in Water Diplomacy’ at which the WWDN presented its voluntary commitment to the Water Action Agenda. In essence, this commitment is to continue to build an inclusive network focused on women, water, peace and security and to foster dialogue across countries and regions around common challenges, shared experiences, and enhanced understanding.

In its After-Action report, the authors note that fostering inclusive dialogue and decision-making processes is challenging and requires targeted resources and dedicated staff to actively help remove barriers in support of broad participation of marginalized voices. They further note that the pursuance of broader alliances such as with youth and indigenous water leaders is particularly valuable and impactful for network members and the Network’s objectives. Thirdly, the authors underline that while engagement with high level processes such as the UN Water Conference is important, significant benefits for broader inclusion efforts can also be leveraged by supporting voices and actors long established in the water sector to create space for the next generation of water leaders.

Source of Innovation, a partnership promoted and co-financed by the Interamerican Development Bank (IDB), has carried out a study on cybersecurity trends in the water and sanitation sector of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). The study involved an assessment of LAC’s water and wastewater infrastructure ‘cybersecurity readiness’ and presents key recommendations for public and private sector actors to increase their organization’s overall cyber resilience.

In the past decades, various kind of urban services have made a transition to digital data to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of management systems – improving data availability, reducing operating costs and assisting external communications. However, this process also opens the sector to vulnerabilities including activities of malicious actors and cyberattacks.  Water utilities around the world have been exposed to cyberattacks of various kinds, ranging from ransomware to manipulating vales and flow operations. In response to attacks on utilities amongst others in California, North Carolina, Florida, Kansas and Puerto Rico, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has in March this year required states to assess the cyber security capabilities of their drinking water systems. In the U.K., a water utility in South Staffordshire suffered an attack on its IT systems.

The cyberattacks can originate from different kinds of groupings: attacks from sovereign states, cybercriminals seeking financial gains, terrorists, ‘hacktivists’, etc. In LAC, the study mentions that the most prominent threats are currently financially motivated and take the form of ransomware or malware attacks. The study notes a rapid increase in these attacks over time and proposes a range of responses to enhance the protection of the sector against this form of crime.

The first such response is at the policy level, requiring national, subnational, and local level actors to develop a vision on cybercrime and develop clear policy goals in response. Secondly, the water and sanitation need to be classified as critical infrastructure by law, which is something that most states have not yet done. Thirdly, partnerships need to be developed with actors in society to incorporate the cyber knowledge in the private sector and come up to speed with best practices. Fourth, internal management culture needs to be adapted to incorporate cyber awareness. And fifth, practical steps need to be taken internally to respond adequately, such as mapping risks, identifying and protecting vulnerable devices and systems, preparing for incident responses and implementing security requirements.        

Floods in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo have killed at least 400 people according to the governor of the South Kivu region where the floods occurred.  Heavy rain commenced in the areas on the 4th of May and continued on the 5th of May, swelling the Cibira/Cabondo and Nyamakubi rivers and triggering landslides which swept through the villages of villages of Bushushu and Nyamukubi. Half of Nyamukubi village is reportedly destroyed.

The Relief organisation Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) reported that the disaster struck on market day in Bushushu and the population was therefore higher than it would have been on a normal day.  The UN office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) reported on the 7th of May that 270 people were confirmed dead and a further 300 were reported missing. In addition, some 3,000 households are currently without shelter, with 1,200 homes having been destroyed and 3,000 homes affected.  

The south Kivu area is already an area which has received many people who have been internally displaced by the conflict in the DRC, especially from north Kivu.

In parallel and related developments, at least 130 people died in severe flooding that also triggered landslides in northern and western Rwanda. More than 5,000 homes are reportedly destroyed in the area, and casualty numbers are expected to increase with the passage of time.

In April severe flooding took place in four provinces in Burundi following heavy rains from the 31st of March to the 1st of April, killing 14 people and causing landslides in neighbouring DRC and Rwanda.    

In both the DRC and Rwanda, landslides have affected roads into the disaster areas, making relief efforts more complex.            

Following heavy rains and flooding in March this year, central Somalia again experienced heavy rains in mid-May, killing 22 people and affecting an estimated 450 000 people, of whom 219 000 have been displaced. The long rains, which had provided little relief during the past three years due to an ongoing drought, came early in Somalia this year, arriving in March and April rather than May.  Humanitarian organisations have predicted that if the heavy rains continue, up to 1,6 million people could be affected.

According to a Somali Water and Land Information Management project update, the Shabelle River first breached its banks on the 9th of May, flooding the town of Belet Wayne and its surrounding farmlands for a period of two weeks. As a result, almost 90% of the residents were displaced, and families displaced by the flood have been placed in a vulnerable position with limited access to food, safe water and shelter. In addition, according to UNICEF, around twelve villages in the area are completely isolated and can only be reached by boat. The flood moved further downstream and following further rainfall on the 26th of May, a further four villages were flooded. Residents and authorities have been supported to strengthen river embankments using sandbags.

The flooding is reportedly the worst in Belet Wayne in 30 years. Paradoxically, the flood follows the longest and most severe drought on record in the Horn of Africa, which experienced six consecutive rainy seasons without rain. More than 43 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance across Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia. Nevertheless humanitarian funding is currently low: UNICEF reports that the Somalia Humanitarian response plan is only 26% funded.  

On the 16th of May, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) announced that there is a 66% likelihood that the average global temperature between 2023 and 2027 will be more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for at least one year.  There is also a 98% likelihood that at least one of the next five years, and the five-year period as a whole, will be the warmest on record.

This information is contained in an annual update produced by the WMO which covers the period from 2023 to 2027. Current models predict that in the 2023-2027 period, the average temperature near the surface of the earth will be between 1.1⁰C and 1.8⁰C above the average for the years between 1850 and 1900, i.e. the pre-industrial period. Within this bandwidth from 1.1 to 1.8 degrees, there is a 66% chance that the average near surface temperature for the five year period will lie above 1.5 degrees (and by consequence a 33% chance that it will lie below it).

In addition, I is expected that the world could be facing temperature records in 2023 or 2024 due to the return of the El Niño weather pattern. The El Niño weather pattern is associated with a weakening of the trade winds blowing westward along the equator. This results in the eastward movement of warm water in the Pacific Ocean, which can have significant impacts on weather around the world. Already, the first four months of 2023 are the fourth warmest on record according to the European Copernicus climate monitoring programme.    

For 2023, WMO predicts reduced rainfall over Indonesia, the Amazon and Central America. Between May and September it expects an increased chance of above average rainfall in the Sahel, Northern Europe, Alaska and northern Siberia, as well as above average rainfall over Eurasia between December and February in 2023 through to 2027.        

A research article on global hydrology published in  Science on the 18th of May shows that more than half of the large freshwater lakes across the world experienced a decline in storage between 1992 and 2020.  The natural volume of the world’s lakes has declined by some 26 Gigatonnes per year (equivalent to the volume of some 10 million Olympic sized swimming pools) over these three decades. The article notes that it is already well known that the combination of human activity and climate change are affecting the world’s surface water, of which 87% is stored in lakes. A number of scientific studies that have been published in the past decade have pointed to this fact, with individual stories such as the decline of the Aral Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Great Lakes and Lake Poyang having been documented also.      

However, although those studies noted the decline, they were not able to tease out the causes of this decline with certainty, largely because of limitations in modelling and observation, such as limited spatial coverage of data. With the use of satellite data, however, it is possible to pan out and look at large scale changes in lake water storage, as well as document changes over a long time period. Using recently developed algorithms and statistical learning frameworks that factor in the impacts of human activity and climate data, the researchers show that some 56% of the changes in storage over time is directly attributable to human activities and changes on temperature and evaporation.   

Across the world, a total of 457 natural lakes (43% of the total number of lakes studied) had significant water losses with a total loss of 38 Gigatonnes per year. By contrast, 234 natural lakes experienced storage gains with a total of 13 Gigatonnes per year.

The largest losses were geographically concentrated: over 80% of the total decline in drying lakes stems from the 26 largest losses. The largest inland water body, the Caspian Sea, accounts for 49% of the total decline and 71% of the net decline in natural lake volume. Similarly, the Aral Sea is losing 6.59 Gigatonnes of water per year, Lake Mar Chiquita is losing 0.75 Gigatonnes per year, and the Dead Sea is losing some 0.6 Gigatonnes per year.

On the 2nd of May, UN Water launched the third round of global data compilation for sustainable development goal 6 (SDG 6) on water to integrate and mainstream the evidence base for global decision making on water and sanitation, the 2023 Data Drive. This third data drive is taking place against the background of a marked improvement over time in the breadth and depth of national reporting on SDG6 since the first data drive in 2016/2017 and the second in 2019/2020: the size and quality of the global data set guiding national and international decision making on water has improved steadily since the launch of the 2030 Agenda in 2015. While in 2019 countries were reporting on average on just seven water related indicators, this rose to 8,5 at the end 2022. Perhaps surprisingly, many countries from Sub Saharan Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe reported on ten or more SDG 6 indicators between 2018 and 2022, whereas their North America, Western European and Eastern Asian counterparts reported on between seven and nine indicators on average.     

The data drive covers four of the targets and seven of the indicators embedded within SDG 6, covering a wide range of thematic areas ranging from the proportion of a country’s wastewater flows that are safely treated to the change in water related ecosystems over time. The data drive is carried out by the UN-Water Integrated Monitoring Initiative for SDG 6 (IMI-SDG6), whereby different water related UN agencies act as custodian agencies for the monitoring of progress on each indicator. The aim of the data drive is to compile information from national governments on the status of different elements of the water cycle and to broadly track progress towards SDG 6 and communicate needs for policy development and decision making at national level. For each indicator there is a specific focal point in national government working together with colleagues within and outside their organization to compile data on that particular indicator. Similarly, countries have an overall focal point for SDG who functions as the main of contact for the IMI and receives information about cross-cutting and institutional issues related to SDG 6 monitoring, reporting, analysis and data use.

The reports from individual countries are compiled into a wide range of reports by UN Water focusing on individual indicators as well as on overarching themes. The information feeds into processes such as the High-Level Forum on Sustainable Development, the International Decade for Action on Water for Sustainable Development, and it informs global thematic processes on health, food security, disaster risk reduction and climate change. In 2021 it lay at the basis of UN Water’s 2018 synthesis report on progress in achieving sustainable development goal 6 (SDG 6) on water and sanitation, which already warned that the world was off track to achieve SDG 6 by 2030. It also enabled the 2021 UN Water  progress update , which made it clear that existing efforts needed to be quadrupled if SDG 6 is to be achieved by 2030. These conclusions are based on the country data on progress on SDG 6 indicators, which is collected and compiled by UN-Water in partnership with the custodian agencies for each of the 8 sub-targets within SDG6.

UN Water’s Integrated Monitoring Initiative for SDG6 supports countries in their monitoring of water and sanitation related indicators: country level data are compiled and validated by different custodian agencies, after which the work commences on an integrated and comprehensive data set across the 11 different indicators.  Historically, before SDG 6, data on water and sanitation was collected in the context of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), in which data collection focused on access to ‘improved’ water and sanitation services. The MDG’s facilitated the development of the first global snapshot of access to water and sanitation, but the system had shortcomings in that it did not measure critical dimensions such as the quality of the service, its physical and economic availability, or its continuity. Beyond this, the system only covered the 11% of global water withdrawals dedicated to household water use. With the advent of SDG 6, a much more ambitious data collection effort was launched which embraced new topics such as water quality, water use efficiency, integrated water resources management, water related ecosystems, international cooperation and stakeholder participation. This enabled monitoring of the entire water cycle but required considerable expansion in monitoring capacity and therefore a global drive for data.

From fairly humble beginnings, member states are therefore currently reporting on more than 70% of the indicators. However, data collection and synthesis on some of the indicators still remains a challenge. The monitoring of water quality under SDG target 6.3, for instance, which embraces both the quantity of domestic and industrial wastewater that is safely treated, as well as the proportion of natural water bodies with good ambient water quality, still suffers from both a relative lack of water monitoring points and the complexity of tracking a very wide range of different pollutants. Similarly, the change in water-related ecosystems over time (indicator 6.6.1) involves a complex analysis of changes in different kinds of ecosystems over time which are hard to quantify or compare with each other.                        

The government of Ecuador has completed the world’s largest debt for nature swap with the support of the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB) and the U.S. Development Finance Corporation (DFC). The IDB provided a $ 85 million guarantee, while the DFC provided a $ 656 million political risk insurance to purchase the country’s existing debt at better financial terms. The agreement serves the double purpose of reducing the country’s debt burden while releasing hundreds of millions of dollars for marine conservation around the Galapagos islands. According to Bloomberg, Ecuador’s Finance Minister Pablo Arosemana announced that the country will be considering other options to monetise Ecuador’s biodiversity in the coming two years, including the protection of Amazon corridors   

Through the deal, Ecuador exchanged 1,63 billion U.S. dollars in bonds for a 656-million-dollar loan at much lower repayment rates.  As a result, the country will achieve more than U.S. $ 1.13 billion in savings through reduced debt servicing costs. The bonds were undergoing devaluation due to political instability, but through partnership with the IDB and the DFC, the bond was converted to a cheaper to service ‘Galapagos Bond’ partly underwritten by the two financial institutions. Credit Suisse announced its intention to buy the bonds at U.S. $ 656 million, whereby the bond will be restructured to mature in 2041 while releasing U.S. $ 18 million to be spent every year by the government of Ecuador on the conservation of the Galapagos Islands.

According to research conducted by the African Development Bank, the concept of debt for nature swaps was developed by Thomas Lovejoy at the World Wildlife Fund, and the first debt for nature swap was carried out in Bolivia in 1987 thanks to facilitation by Conservation International. The model usually involves the trading of debt forgiveness for positive environmental outcomes, mobilising funds for conservation that are carried out by a local conservation group. Since 187, some 140 such deals have been concluded worldwide. After a peak in debt for nature swaps in the early 1990’s that collectively amounted to more than 500 million dollars annually, the trend has reduced significantly to an average joint value of 50 million dollars a year.        

On the 25th of May the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the United Kingdom (U.K.) signed an agreement to fund up to U.S. $ 2 billion in climate projects in Africa. The agreement was signed in the context of the AfDB annual meeting that took place in Accra, Ghana. At COP 26 in Glasgow, the U.K. had already announced its intention to support the Africa Adaptation Acceleration Programme endorsed by the African Union in order to upscale African plans to increase climate resilience. The financial guarantee measure was announced at COP 26 by then Prime Minister Boris Johnson and dubbed the ‘Room to Run’ guarantee, to be issued to the AfDB.

Two projects have already been identified as the first to benefit from the Room to Run financing mechanism. These are the El Asfar Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in Egypt which will be implementing a project on the reuse of treated wastewater in agriculture. The El Asfar WWTP is one of the largest wastewater treatment plants in Africa and the Middle East.

In Senegal, the AfDB will finance a project providing sustainable and climate resilient access to safe water and sanitation services to some 1.45 million people, of which 51% are women.

At the opening of the AfDB annual meeting, AfDB President Dr Akinwumi Adesina stated that while Africa’s cumulative climate financing needs had been estimated at $2.7 trillion between 2020 and 2030, climate financing resources were only flowing to Africa in trickles. “Africa receives only 3% of global climate finance, of which 14% is from the private sector, the lowest in the world,” Adesina said.

The Spanish Meteorological Agency AEMET forecast a heatwave towards the end of April, with temperatures reaching 36-38⁰C. In some areas, the temperature was 10-15⁰C above average for this period of the year. On the 8th of May, AEMET reported that April 2023 was the hottest April experienced by the country since records began in 1961. On the 5th of May an international team of researchers found that the heatwave in Spain, Portugal, Morocco and Algeria would have been almost impossible if it were not for the effects of climate change.   

Spain has not recovered fully from the drought that impacted the country in the summer of 2022, and reservoirs are currently at 50% of their full capacity, while in the northeast of Catalonia, which has been particularly affected by the drought, reservoirs are currently reported to be at only 25% of their full capacity.  The drought in Catalonia is reported to be the worst since 1905.  Water restrictions were already announced in the area at the end of February, affecting a population of some 6 million people across 224 municipalities, including Barcelona and Girona. Urban residents were limited to 230 litres per day and prohibited from using water for the purpose of watering green areas or filling swimming pools. Agricultural water users were required to reduce their water consumption by 40%, and industrial; water users were required to reduce consumption by 15%.    

On the 25th of April, Spain’s Minister of Agriculture Luis Planas announced that the country had requested emergency funds from the European Union to help the farmers grapple with the drought.  The country’s coordinating agency for farmers and ranchers, COAG, estimated that some 60% of farmland is still suffering from the drought and stated that irreversible damage has been done to more than 3,5 million hectares of crops.  Cereal crops like wheat and barley are likely to fail entirely in four regions of the country.  In December 2022, olive growers in the Jaén region had already predicted a historically low harvest volume.  In Andalusia, controversy emerged around plans to increase irrigation near the Donana wetlands and legalise more than 1,500 hectares of illegal farmland.    

On the 19th of April, the Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez had stated in parliament that “drought is going to be one of the central political and territorial debates of our country over the coming years”.  

On the 1st of June, the European Commission decided to refer Italy to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for breaching its obligations under the wastewater treatment directive. This decision follows an earlier judgement from the ECJ from 2014 that in 74 urban areas, Italy has been falling behind in its obligations to sufficiently treat urban wastewater before releasing it back into the environment. According to the EU, although Italy has made significant progress in the implementation of the wastewater directive, there are still five settlements - one in the Valle d'Aosta region and four in Sicily – where the terms of the ruling have not been observed. The EU argues that the lack of adequate wastewater treatment systems for these five agglomerations poses significant risks to human health, inland waters and the marine environment in the environmentally sensitive areas in which the untreated waste water is discharged. In 2018, four years after the judgement, the EU issued a final notice to Italy to comply with the court ruling  

The EU’s Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive  (UWTD) stems from 1991 and requires the collection and treatment of wastewater in all settlements with more than 2000 inhabitants. For settlements with more than 10 000 inhabitants which are located in ecologically sensitive areas, the UWTD requires advanced wastewater treatment before its release back into the environment. The directive had set a deadline for the year 2000 for its full implementation in settlements larger than 10 000 people.           

The government of Tanzania has more than doubled its budget allocation to the Rural Water and Sanitation Agency (RUWASA) in Geita district. RUWASA district manager Sande Batakanwa announced this to a meeting of community-based water services organisations, indicating that the government of Tanzania had allocated 4.7 billion Tanzania shillings (U.S. 2 million) to the implementation of the project.  This decision builds on a project inaugurated earlier which involves the drilling of a total of thirteen deep boreholes, of which eight have already been completed. In 2022, the district had set policy targets to raise the coverage of access to drinking water from 57% to 65% by the end of the year. The government had allocated US $ 1 million The District Manager of RUWASA, had presented the plans to an annual meeting of community-based water services organisations in the district last year, noting that an effective revenue collection system for the services was essential.  Beyond technical interventions such as developing the water source and treating the water to adequate quality for drinking purposes, strengthening of rural community-based water services organisations through capacity building is key to long term service provision. 

The community-based organisations have also been urged to undertake conservation activities for the long-term protection of their water resources by working together with the Tanzania Forest Service to distribute seedlings of native trees, to be planted around water sources.  

The project falls under the Tanzanian government’s current water sector development programme, which has been in place since 2006.