water

Article
A Review of the SDG 6 Synthesis Report 2018 from an
Education, Training, and Research Perspective
Angela Renata Cordeiro Ortigara 1, *, Melvyn Kay 2 and Stefan Uhlenbrook 1,3,4
1 UNESCO World Water Assessment Program, Villa La Colombella, Colombella Alta, 06134 Perugia, Italy;
s.uhlenbrook@unesco.org
2 RTCS Ltd. Moorland House, 10 Hayway, Rushden NN10 6AG, UK; kay@rtcs.co.uk
3 IHE-Delft, Westvest 7, 2611AX Delft, The Netherlands
4 Delft University of Technology, Civil Engineering and Geosciences, 2628 CN Delft, The Netherlands
* Correspondence: a.ortigara@unesco.org; Tel.: +39-075-591-1019




Received: 22 July 2018; Accepted: 26 September 2018; Published: 28 September 2018


Abstract: In 2015, UN Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
including Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6): “Ensure availability and sustainable management
of water and sanitation for all”. Commonly known as the ‘water goal’, SDG 6 went well beyond
the limited focus on water supply and sanitation in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
and recognized the importance of all aspects of the water cycle in development and that water was
embedded directly and indirectly in all 17 SDGs. In 2018, the UN published a report: “Sustainable
Development Goal 6 Synthesis Report on Water and Sanitation 2018” (referred to in this paper as
‘the report’) that reviewed progress with SDG 6 at global and regional levels. Overall, the report
concluded there was progress, but it was too slow, and the world was not on track to achieve SDG 6
by 2030 without a significant change of gear. The report was written primarily for those working in
sustainable development to guide finance and resource allocation, but there was much embedded in
the report that was of value to those engaged in research and in developing the much-needed capacity
to plan and manage water resources, particularly in developing countries. This paper attempts to
distill these issues and to ask how those involved in education, training, and research could contribute
to enabling and accelerating progress towards achieving SDG 6. Three key areas of engagement
were identified: the urgent need for more data and improved monitoring to assess SDG 6 progress
and to enhance decision-making, the need to address the serious lack of human and institutional
capacity that was constraining progress, and the challenge of taking research into policy and practice.
Note: This paper is a review of selected aspects of the report (in which production the authors were
chiefly involved as coordinators and editors), and as such most of the facts, figures, and discussion
in this review are taken from the report. For this reason, we have not continually attributed them
to the report to avoid repetition. However, in some cases, we have attributed report material to the
primary sources where we considered it important to do so. We have also attributed material we
have included, and which is not cited in the report. A review inevitably depends, to some extent,
on the views of the reviewers and as such we have tried to make it clear where we are expressing our
personal views rather than those expressed in the report. The report contains full references to all the
primary sources.

Keywords: sustainable development; water resources; water and sanitation; research; education

1. Introduction
In 2015 the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was unanimously adopted by the 193
Member States of the United Nations (UN) including Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6): “Ensure

Water 2018, 10, 1353; doi:10.3390/w10101353 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2018, 10, 1353 2 of 22

availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”—often referred to as the
‘water goal’. A report was commissioned in 2016 and published in 2018—‘Sustainable Development
Goal 6 Synthesis Report on Water and Sanitation 2018’ (and is referred to throughout this paper as
the ‘report’)—to review progress with SDG 6 at the global and regional levels based on the available
evidence and complementary UN and non-UN information sources [1]. The report was based on the
latest data available for the 11 SDG 6 global indicators that track progress towards the 8 SDG 6 global
targets as well as complementary data and information from the literature. The report sought to inform
discussions among Member States during the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) on Sustainable
Development in July 2018. It also aimed to inform policy and decision-makers working in water,
environment, and sustainable development, and was expected to be of particular value to professionals
in the water and water-using sectors, education and research, and NGOs. Significant outcomes from
the report included a baseline status from which to measure progress, gaps in knowledge, capacity
and resource availability, and directions for enabling and accelerating progress towards achieving SDG
6 by 2030.
This paper reviews the report from an academic perspective and we ask how those involved
in education, training, and research can contribute to enabling and accelerating progress towards
achieving SDG 6. We first explore the advent and development of SDG 6 as concerns about water
and sanitation began to emerge during the early development of the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs), in order to better understand what SDG 6 is about, and how and why eventually it became an
important and central feature of the 2030 Agenda. Indeed, the UN Deputy Secretary General described
SDG 6 as the ‘docking station’ for all the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda (speech at Stockholm World
Water Week 2018). We then distill those aspects that we consider to be particularly important for
those involved in education and research and who may wish to engage with SDG 6. These include
the key areas of data acquisition, human and institutional capacity development, and taking research
into practice.

2. Advent and Development of SDG 6

SDG 6 was one of 17 SDGs in the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development that
embodied universal aspirations for achieving a future without poverty, more just, equitable,
peaceful and sustainable, that leaves no one behind [2]. It provided a framework that fostered
universality and integration across countries, mobilized all stakeholders, and inspired action. It invited
everyone in both developing and developed countries to accept and embrace comprehensiveness
and interconnectedness.
The 2030 Agenda explicitly included all aspects of water resources, water supply, and sanitation,
but this was not always the case. The 2030 Agenda and the SDGs were built on the foundation created
by the MDGs between 2000 and 2015. The first UN Conference dedicated to water was held in 1977
in Mar del Plata (Argentina), but wider concerns about water resources were only just emerging
on the political scene in the early 1990s. In 1992, the International Conference on Water and the
Environment was responsible for developing the ‘Dublin Principles’ that provided the foundation for
an integrated approach to managing water resources. In 2000, world leaders adopted the Millennium
Declaration from which eight MDGs set out elements of development policy, including target 7C: to
halve “the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic
sanitation” by 2015. However, the original wording only referred to drinking water and it was not
until 2002 that sanitation was added following the 2002 Johannesburg Plan of Action. Water resources
as such did not feature in the MDGs, except implicitly in goals such as halving extreme poverty
rates, reducing child mortality, halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and other diseases, and ensuring
environmental sustainability.
The actions carried out as a result of the MDGs enabled millions to gain access to clean drinking
water, sanitation, and basic hygiene. In 1990, the reference year for measuring MDG progress, global
Water 2018, 10, 1353 3 of 22

coverage of the use of improved drinking water sources was 76% and sanitation facilities was only
54%. In 2015, access to drinking water rose to 88% and sanitation facilities to 77% [3].
With hindsight, the MDGs had significant shortcomings. They paid little attention to the
interactions between goals and whether the total demand for key resources, such as water, could be
met without degrading the natural resource base and the underlying water-related ecosystems [4].
In 2015, the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs were built on the foundation created by the MDGs. The 2030
Agenda provided a framework that fostered universality and integration across countries, mobilized
all stakeholders, and inspired action, inviting everyone in both developing and developed countries
to accept and embrace comprehensiveness and interconnectedness. It took into consideration the
growing global concern over the availability and quality of water resources, not just to meet water
supply and sanitation needs but also to satisfy the world’s increasing demand for water in the face of
rapidly expanding populations, agricultural intensification, urbanization, increasing energy demand,
industrial production and pollution, and climate change.
In 2015, the World Economic Forum listed water insecurity as the greatest long-term risk facing
society [5] and water has since remained one of the top global risks. In 2016, the UN World Water
Development Report suggested that, if society continued to pursue the current “business as usual”
model, by 2050, water demand would exceed supply by over 40%, which would put at risk 45% of
global GDP, 52% of the world’s population, and 40% of grain production [6].
In 2016, agriculture (including irrigation, livestock, and aquaculture) accounted for 69% of
all annual water withdrawals globally, industry (including power generation) accounted for 19%,
and households for 12% [7]. But meeting these demands was just one side of the coin. The other
side was that all water uses can pollute freshwater resources. Globally, it was estimated that 80%
of wastewater from municipal, industrial, and agricultural sources was discharged back into water
bodies without proper treatment, further reducing the availability of fresh water for drinking and other
uses [8]. Thus, water demand, how it was used, and how wastewater was discharged into water bodies
could no longer continue to be treated as separate entities if we wished for sustainable development.
The 2030 Agenda was more comprehensive than the MDGs: 17 goals instead of eight, 163 targets
instead of 21, and 230 indicators instead of 60 (see Box 1). There was also growing acceptance of
water’s central role in development and, as water was connected to most if not all the proposed SDGs,
water management would be taken care of within each SDG. However, this raised serious concerns
within the water sector that such an approach would be contrary to the 2030 Agenda aspiration
for integration, as it would perpetuate the fragmented or ‘silo’ approach to managing water within
water-using sectors, such as in water supply, in energy, and agriculture—a management approach that
was and continues to be prevalent in most countries. Ait Kadi [2] suggested that this option would also
fail to highlight water as a limiting resource and recognize both the scale and complexity of the huge
and multidimensional water challenge facing the world. As a result, most international water-related
organizations concluded that water was so crucial to development it should have its own goal.
The acceptance of a dedicated water goal (SDG 6) was a major ‘game-changer’ for water and
water-using sectors. The goal flagged water as in need of serious attention and placed primary
responsibility for water management with the water sector. The new goal went much further than
water supply, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) to include all aspects of the water cycle and explicitly
recognized that water has impact across the entire development agenda. It targeted water quantity
(scarcity) and quality, water-use efficiency, and water-related ecosystems. It promoted a basin approach
to water management and the need for Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), which goes
beyond national administrative boundaries and embraced transboundary water management that
affects almost half the Earth’s land surface.
A major step forward among Member States was recognizing the significance of IWRM as a
coping strategy for managing water shortages and as a means of reconciling many competing and
potentially conflicting demands for water. The water sector has a long history of taking a fragmented
approach to water management. Adopting an integrated approach was an ambitious step and not
Water 2018, 10, 1353 4 of 22

without its critics, but it aligned well with the overall aspiration for an integrated and collaborative
approach across the 2030 Agenda. The implication that stemmed from such an approach was that
the success of each SDG would be linked to the success of others. SDG 6 would most effectively be
achieved if the other goals also succeeded and, in turn, the success of other goals would depend on the
success of SDG 6.

Box 1. Establishing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The United Nations Statistical Commission established an Interagency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators
to develop and implement the global indicator framework for the goals and targets of the 2030 agenda. The
SDG targets are “global in nature and universally applicable, taking into account different national realities,
capacities and levels of development, and respecting national policies and priorities”. They are aspirational, and
each government must decide how to incorporate the targets into national planning processes, policies, and
strategies, taking into account national circumstances.
Global assessments provide a synthesis of current thinking about complex issues, and guidance about what
should be done. They may not be so useful for guiding investment and solving local problems, but economic
interconnections today can mean that specific geographical problems can have global reach.
Source: Adapted from [1].

3. SDG 6 Synthesis Report 2018

The report, which presented a global review of the water sector and progress with SDG 6, was the
first of its kind and as such its authors considered the report to be a ‘work in progress’—one that would
inevitably improve as subsequent progress reports were issued. This was an ambitious and unique
undertaking that brought together the custodians of the 11 SDG 6 global indicators and involved
14 UN agencies, several international organizations, and many individuals, directly and indirectly
(Table 1). The report itself thus became a major exercise in cooperation and integration.
The report first presented the global baseline status of each target and associated indicators,
including the challenges, opportunities, and policy implications. The report’s focus then shifted
towards what needed to be done to enable and accelerate progress within the water sector to achieve
SDG 6 by 2030, including the thorny issues of putting integration into practice, improving water
governance, and eliminating inequality, which is an essential feature of the 2030 Agenda of leaving
no-one behind.
In the spirit of the 2030 Agenda, the report also examined how SDG 6 connected with other SDGs,
the benefits water could bring to sustainable development, and in turn the benefits that other SDGs
could bring to the water sector. There were many ways of describing the myriad connections, but too
often discussions about them were intuitive due to the lack of data and analysis to create quantitative
arguments. The report went beyond rhetoric and offered evidence to demonstrate the importance of
water connections, particularly those that maximized synergies and reduced the risks that actions taken
to meet one goal would, if not well explored, undermine other goals. Such an integrated approach
could help to ensure appropriate timing and sequencing of policy and institutional reforms and public
investments so that limited resources were used more efficiently and sustainably. The outcome from
the report was summarized in a set of messages on the process of integrating SDG 6 into the 2030
Agenda, on understanding the baseline status and trends based on interpreting the data from the
indicators, and on enabling and accelerating progress towards achieving SDG 6.
Water 2018, 10, 1353 5 of 22

Table 1. SDG 6 targets, indicators, and custodian agencies.

Target Indicator (Custodian Agencies) Custodian Agencies–Databases

6.1.1 Proportion of population using safely managed drinking

6.1 By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe
water services (World Health Organization (WHO)/United WHO/UNICEF, JMP global database *
and affordable drinking water for all.
Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF))

6.2 By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable 6.2.1.a Proportion of population using safely managed
sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, sanitation services (WHO/UNICEF)
6.2.1.b Proportion of population using a handwashing facility WHO/UNICEF, JMP global database *
paying special attention to the needs of women and girls
and those in vulnerable situations. with soap and water available (WHO/UNICEF)
6.3.1 Proportion of wastewater safely treated (WHO/United
6.3 By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, WHO/UNICEF, JMP global database,
Nations Human Settlements Program
eliminating dumping and minimizing release of UN-Habitat
(UN-Habitat)/United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD))
hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the
proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially 6.3.2 Proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water United Nations Environment Program,
increasing recycling and safe reuse globally. quality (United Nations Environment Program /UNSD) GEMStat water-quality database ****
6.4 By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across 6.4.1 Change in water-use efficiency over time (Food and
all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and FAO, AQUASTAT ***, World Bank
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO))
supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and
substantially reduce the number of people suffering from 6.4.2 Level of water stress: freshwater withdrawal as a
FAO, AQUASTAT ***
water scarcity. proportion of available freshwater resources (FAO)
6.5.1 Degree of integrated water resources management
United Nations Environment Program,
implementation (0–100) (United Nations
IWRM data portal **
Environment Program)
6.5 By 2030, implement integrated water resources
management at all levels, including through 6.5.2 Proportion of transboundary basin area with an
transboundary cooperation as appropriate. operational arrangement for water cooperation (United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization UNECE, UNESCO
(UNESCO)/United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe (UNECE))
6.6 By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, 6.6.1 Change in the extent of water-related ecosystems over time
United Nations Environment Program,
including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers, (United Nations Environment Program
Ramsar Convention
and lakes. /Ramsar Convention)
Water 2018, 10, 1353 6 of 22

Table 1. Cont.

Target Indicator (Custodian Agencies) Custodian Agencies–Databases

6.a By 2030, expand international cooperation and 6.a.1 Amount of water- and sanitation-related official
WHO/OECD/United Nations
capacity-building support to developing countries in development assistance that is part of a
Environment Program, Creditor
water- and sanitation-related activities and programs, government-coordinated spending plan (WHO/United
Reporting System (CRS) Aid Activity
including water-harvesting, desalination, water-efficiency, Nations Environment Program/Organization for Economic
database, UN-Water GLAAS *****
wastewater-treatment, recycling, and reuse technologies. Cooperation and Development (OECD))
6.b.1 Proportion of local administrative units with established
6.b Support and strengthen the participation of local WHO/OECD/United Nations
and operational policies and procedures for participation of
communities in improving water and Environment Program, UN-Water
local communities in water and sanitation management
sanitation management. GLAAS ****
(WHO/United Nations Environment Program/OECD)
Source: Adapted from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2017) and UN, 2018. * WHO and UNICEF (2017) WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program (JMP)
Global Database. Updated July 2017. Available from https://washdata.org/data. ** United Nations Environment Program-DHI Partnership (UNEP-DHI) (2018). Integrated Water
Resources Management (IWRM) Data Portal. Available from http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org/iwrmmonitoring.html. *** FAO (2016a). AQUASTAT website. Rome. Available
from http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/water_use/index.stm. **** Global Environment Monitoring System for Water (GEMS/Water) (2017). GEMStat. Available from http:
//gemstat.org/about/#gemstat. ***** WHO and UN-Water (2017). UN-Water Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water (GLAAS) 2017 Report: Financing Universal
Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene under the Sustainable Development Goals. Geneva. Available from http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/glaas-report-2017/en/.
Water 2018, 10, 1353 7 of 22
Water 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22

Three issues
Three issuesofofspecific
specific interest
interest andand concern
concern to those
to those in education,
in education, training,training, and emerged
and research research
emerged
from from the
the report. report.
First Firstdearth
was the was the dearth
of data of data
across the across
global the global
water water
sector. sector.
Second wasSecond waslack
the acute the
acute lack of human and institutional capacity to manage water in many low-
of human and institutional capacity to manage water in many low- and middle-income countries, and and middle-income
countries,
third andneed
was the thirdtowasturnthe need tointo
research turn research into and
policy-making policy-making and practical None
practical development. development.
of these
None of was
findings these findings They
surprising. was surprising. They have
have constrained constrained
water-related water-related
development development
and economic and
growth,
economic growth,
particularly particularlycountries
in the developing in the developing
where watercountries where
insecurity water
was insecurity
already was already
high, where high,
population
where population
growth was expected growth was expected
to be greatest, to be
and where thegreatest,
impact of and where
global the impact
changes, of global
including climatechanges,
change,
including
were climate
expected to bechange, were expected to be most severe.
most severe.
What waswas remarkable
remarkable and and paradoxical
paradoxical was
was the
the limited
limited attention
attention that
that governments
governments appeared
appeared to to
give to
give to these
these issues
issues when concerns over water resources were high high on the
the political
political Agenda in many
water-insecure countries.
water-insecure countries. Behind
Behind this
this was
was the
the suspicion
suspicion that
that Adam
Adam Smith’s commentcomment in in 1776
1776 [9]
[9] still
still
pervaded much
pervaded muchof ofthe
thethinking
thinkingabout
aboutwater
waterresources,
resources,itsitsrelative
relative importance,
importance, and
and value,
value, “Nothing
“Nothing is
is more
more useful
useful thanthan water,
water, butbut it will
it will purchase
purchase scarce
scarce anything”.
anything”. Water
Water is a is a commodity
commodity that that should
should not
notwasted
be be wasted or treated
or treated poorly
poorly if global
if global and and
locallocal
water water
crisescrises are
are to betoavoided.
be avoided.

4.
4. SDG 6 Indicators
Although
Although readers
readers may
may tend
tend to to focus
focus onon the
the headline
headline findings,
findings, such
such as
as “SDG
“SDG 66 is not on track for
2030”,
2030”, the
thereport
reportraised
raisedconcerns
concerns about
aboutsome of the
some of indicators and their
the indicators and value in supporting
their value the targets
in supporting the
and that, in turn, support policy and decision-making, and monitoring status
targets and that, in turn, support policy and decision-making, and monitoring status and progress. and progress.
Indicators are a means
means of of packaging
packaging or aggregating data into a form that can be more easily easily
interpreted
interpreted from aa policy
policy perspective
perspective and used to monitor monitor status and progress towards a target and and
aa goal (Figure
goal (Figure 1).1). In contrast to original data, indicators
original data, indicators are usually single-valued numbers
usually single-valued numbers that that
aggregate
aggregate different
differentsources
sourcesofof information
information andandreflect the the
reflect overall scorescore
overall of a process. Establishing
of a process. good
Establishing
indicators was about
good indicators capturing
was about and analyzing
capturing and analyzingkey data
key to provide
data a realistic
to provide picture
a realistic of status
picture and
of status
progress towards
and progress a target.
towards If there
a target. If were
theretoo fewtoo
were indicators, it coulditbecould
few indicators, difficult to build an
be difficult to accurate
build an
picture,
accuratewhereas
picture,too many indicators
whereas too many and the process
indicators and ofthedata acquisition,
process of dataanalysis, and interpretation
acquisition, analysis, and
would becomewould
interpretation overly become
complexoverly
and unmanageable, particularly in countries
complex and unmanageable, particularly that
inlack the capacity
countries to
that lack
do
thethis. Achieving
capacity the right
to do this. balancethe
Achieving between accuracy
right balance and practicality
between accuracyby andfocusing on informing
practicality policy
by focusing on
and decision-making
informing policy and is difficult but necessary.
decision-making is difficult but necessary.

Figure 1. Data
Figure 1. Data consolidation
consolidation into
into indicators
indicators and
and goals.
goals. Source:
Source: [10].
[10].

SDG
SDG 66 comprised
comprised eight
eight targets
targets that
that addressed
addressed thethe entire
entire water
water cycle
cycle (Table
(Table1).1). The
The targets
targets
included:
included: provision of drinking water (6.1) and sanitation and hygiene services (6.2), treatment and
provision of drinking water (6.1) and sanitation and hygiene services (6.2), treatment and
reuse
reuse of
of wastewater
wastewater and and ambient-water
ambient-water quality
quality (6.3),
(6.3), water-use
water-use efficiency
efficiency and
and scarcity
scarcity (6.4),
(6.4), IWRM
IWRM
including
including through
through transboundary
transboundary cooperation (6.5), protection
cooperation and restoration
(6.5), protection of aquatic water-related
and restoration of aquatic
ecosystems (6.6), international cooperation and capacity-building (6.a),
water-related ecosystems (6.6), international cooperation and capacity-building and local participation
(6.a), andin water
local
and sanitation management (6.b).
participation in water and sanitation management (6.b).
Water 2018, 10, 1353 8 of 22

Eleven indicators measure progress towards those targets. All the indicators were new, though
some were based on indicators from the MDG period, and now incorporated many new elements that
reflect the increased ambition of the 2030 Agenda. Not all indicators were well-established. Some were
clearly defined, while others were still in a development phase. The UN classified indicators in three
tiers according to their level of development: Tier I indicators had established methods, standards,
and data available for at least 50% of the global population and 50% of countries, Tier II indicators had
established methods and standards, but data were not regularly produced by countries, and Tier III
had no established methodologies and were still being developed. The tier classification was updated
regularly. Table 2 summarizes the status of SDG 6 indicators in 2018.

Table 2. Summary of SDG 6 indicator status (Adapted from [1]).

Opportunities for
Challenges of Disaggregation
Current Status Progress Improving Monitoring
Tracking Progress (Relevance)
and Tracking Progress
Promote further Relevant for all
Difficult to
Less than 50% of standardization and indicators (though
measure for most Data quality, data
countries have harmonization of all different dimensions),
indicators as all availability,
comparable indicators; improve but some lack commonly
SDG 6 global frequency and
baseline estimates monitoring to ensure agreed stratifiers and
indicators are new, coverage vary
for most SDG 6 comparability of data few are routinely
and most have only across countries.
global indicators. across countries and build produced by national
limited time series.
capacity throughout. data providers.

4.1. Targets 6.1—Drinking Water and 6.2—Hygiene and Sanitation

Achieving Target 6.1 called for progressively improving the quality of services to 2.1 billion people
who lacked water accessible on premises, available when needed, and free from contamination (safely
managed drinking water) and reaching the 4.5 billion people worldwide who lacked a safely managed
sanitation service in 2015 [11]. These set the targets for drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene and
called for universal and equitable access to safe and affordable services for all by 2030. They built
on the MDGs but went well beyond simply measuring access to infrastructure to take account of the
quality of services provided. Indicator 6.1.1 was about monitoring the proportion of population using
safely managed drinking water (available on the premises, whenever needed, and free from fecal and
chemical contamination). Indicator 6.2.1 monitored safely managed sanitation (not shared and excreta
safely disposed) and included handwashing facilities. The main concern was not the indicators per se,
but the sheer volume of data needed for assessment. As a consequence, significant data gaps were
identified in some countries, mainly because of introducing the new indicators.

4.2. Target 6.3—Water Quality and Wastewater

This target presented highly complex challenges for many countries. Globally, 80% of all
wastewater (from domestic, industrial, and urban sources, and from agriculture) were reported
to be discharged untreated into water bodies [8]. However, the target called for countries to halve the
proportion of untreated wastewater by 2030 by increasing wastewater collection and ensuring that
treatment produced effluents that consistently met national standards both for domestic sewage and
industrial wastewater. Dealing with what were described as point-source solutions also needed to go
in tandem with tackling diffuse pollution, mainly from agriculture.
Water pollution has worsened since the 1990s in almost all the rivers in Latin America, Africa,
and Asia, putting tens of millions of people at risk [12] as many developing countries have tended
to focus on economic and social development, often at the expense of the water-related environment.
Progress on this target was also linked to safe drinking water, reducing waterborne disease, and safe
water for increasing food production, plus many other development issues. It was monitored via two
indicators: Indicator 6.3.1 monitored the proportion of safely treated wastewater and Indicator 6.3.2
monitored the proportion of water bodies with good ambient-water quality.
Water 2018, 10, 1353 9 of 22

As with Indicators 6.1 and 6.2, data acquisition was the major challenge for monitoring the
two indicators. The efficiency of monitoring programs and data interpretation varied in developed
countries, but major challenges were expected in developing countries, mainly due to the lack of
physical infrastructure for sample collection and analysis and human capacity. Data were often stored
within single institutions and many countries did not have a central facility for water-quality data,
nor did they have policies in place to harmonize data standards and enable intra- and intersectoral
cooperation within and beyond national boundaries. The report was unable to provide detailed insights
into industrial pollution, as discharges were poorly monitored, and data were seldom available at
national level.

4.3. Target 6.4—Water Use and Scarcity

This targeted water-use efficiency (Indicator 6.4.1) and water scarcity (Indicator 6.4.2)—both
aspects proved difficult to assess on a global scale. There were concerns about the indicators as well
as the available data. For this reason, analysis was based on data already available in international
datasets, such as AQUASTAT [7].
Indicator 6.4.1 was about using less water to carry out society’s economic activities and measured
the financial value produced by an economy (i.e., gross domestic product, GDP) relative to the volume
of water used (US$/m3 ). It included all water used in municipalities, industry, agriculture, and
mining. As most countries relied less than 30% on agriculture for their GDP, the report argued that
it was essential to consider all the sectors using water to assess the capacity for economic growth
without overexploiting water resources. However, the report suggested that this indicator did not
tell the whole story for those countries whose GDP relied on low-value agriculture. Improvements
in water productivity and irrigation efficiency in agriculture and reducing water losses in municipal
distribution networks and industrial and energy cooling processes, were among the main issues that
indicators should monitor to provide decision-makers with the information they need to orient their
development choices.
It was important to understand the SDG 6 definition of water-use efficiency to avoid confusion
with other definitions of efficiency commonly used in the water sector. Water-supply engineers,
for example, measure water-use efficiency as the amount of amount of water lost through leakage
relative to the amount of water supplied into the system. Irrigation engineers define water-use
efficiency as the amount of water consumed by a crop divided by the amount withdrawn from a water
source, or the amount of water consumed to produce a measured quantity of produce. Improving
water-use efficiency implied water saving and making water available for other purposes, such as
environmental flows, but this is not always the case. Research has shown that farmers who ‘saved’
water by investing in various technologies tended to increase their irrigated area rather than release
water for others to use [13,14].
Water stress affected countries on every continent, and hindered the sustainability of natural
resources, as well as economic and social development. Indicator 6.4.2 measured water scarcity as the
proportion of total freshwater withdrawn to the total available resource. The indicator now included all
water uses and particularly environmental-flow requirements to sustain vital water-related ecosystems.
Indicator 6.4.2 was a good example of how scale affected the result of monitoring and reporting.
Average global stress value was only 11% that might lead some to conclude that the world was not
really heading for a water crisis. However, there were clearly significant differences among countries
and regions that were hidden within the global figure. Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, was reported
to experience only 3% water stress, but this regional value hid the large differences between the wetter
north and the drier south that regularly suffered from severe drought. Similar significant differences
could also occur within countries and catchments. Clearly, disaggregating data to (sub)country or
(sub-) basin level must be the norm to aid decision-makers. It was pertinent that, within southern
Africa, there were significant water-resource endowments that were underdeveloped and less than
18% of agricultural land was equipped with irrigation systems [7]. Thus, the portion of withdrawals
Water 2018, 10, 1353 10 of 22

of the total available water resources remained low and agriculture was largely dependent on the
uncertainties of rain-fed farming.
In favor of the current indicators, as economies grow, countries tend to use more water for
irrigation, households, energy, industry, mining, and leisure. Each has a different capacity to produce
value. Data showed that, in most countries, there was scope to increase water use without affecting
water resources. However, a decline in water-use efficiency, particularly if accompanied by an increase
in water stress, would instead indicate that the development pattern will become unsustainable in the
future [1].

4.4. Target 6.5—IWRM

This target is about putting IWRM into practice within national (Indicator 6.5.1) and
transboundary contexts (Indicator 6.5.2). Integration was a central theme across the entire 2030 Agenda
and the report argued that putting IWRM into practice would be one of the most comprehensive steps
that countries can make towards achieving SDG 6. Implementing a holistic IWRM approach would
provide institutional structures and multistakeholder processes to balance the development and use of
water resources for people, for sustainable economic growth, and for supporting vital water-related
ecosystem services. There was ‘no one size fits all’ solution. Each country would need to seek its own
pathway towards integration based on its unique mix of natural resources and social and economic
development. A key factor would be long-term political commitment to change at the highest level [2].
The report referred to a framework promoted by GWP to help countries decide on the actions
needed based on their level of socioeconomic development [15]. Evidence was also presented that
correlated a country’s Human Development Index (HDI) with IWRM progress. This pointed to IWRM
being primarily associated with richer countries, but evidence in the report suggested this was not
always the case. According to Shah [15], high HDI clearly helped but low HDI was not be a barrier
to implementing IWRM in countries that had strong national institutional capacity and coordination,
and high stakeholder participation at national and local levels. Eight African countries were listed as
making important steps towards putting IWRM into practice.
Status and progress on IWRM were measured using a questionnaire. This was country-driven
and designed to include both multiple governmental and nongovernmental stakeholder groups.
Completed questionnaires, which contain reasoning for the scores for each question, provided national
policy-makers with a diagnostic tool to identify which areas were progressing well, and those that
may be facing barriers to progress. Questions were posed around four categories: the introduction
of policy, laws, and plans (global average score, 50%); institutions and participation (53%); the use of
management instruments (49%); and financing (39%). The global IWRM score was 48%, corresponding
to medium–low implementation based on surveys from 157 countries. Earlier surveys in 2007 and
2011 (referred to in the report) showed modest progress globally. All countries were not expected to
reach full implementation by 2030 [16].
Indicator 6.5.2 measured and monitored the proportion of a transboundary basin area within
a country covered by an ‘operational arrangement’ defined as a treaty, convention, agreement,
or other formal arrangement that met several operational criteria that sought to go beyond simply
measuring whether arrangements were in place. This was an important target because it was one
of the few SDG targets that explicitly demanded transboundary cooperation over natural-resource
management. Most countries, with riparian rights, recognized the importance of adopting basinwide
cooperation agreements to share water in rivers, lakes, and aquifers. Based on questionnaires, the
average of the national percentage of transboundary basins covered by an operational arrangement
was 59% based on data from 61 out of 153 countries sharing transboundary waters. Countries
highlighted significant challenges in developing transboundary cooperative arrangements, such as
power asymmetries among countries; fragmentation in national legal, institutional, and administrative
frameworks; lack of financial, human, and technical capacity; and poor data availability, especially in
relation to transboundary aquifers [1]. Despite these challenges, managing water bodies that cross
Water 2018, 10, 1353 11 of 22

national administrative boundaries could catalyze cooperation, bring peace and stability to regions,
and promote economic development.
One of the strengths of questionnaires was that data can be easily disaggregated by question and
used by countries as a quick diagnostic tool. This could help to identify those aspects of IWRM
and transboundary management that were progressing well, and at what level (local, national,
or transboundary) and highlight barriers to progress. The report suggested the greatest opportunities
to accelerate implementation were in financing water-resource development and management, and in
devolving IWRM to the lowest appropriate level.

4.5. Target 6.6—Water-Related Ecosystems

The world has lost around 70% of its natural wetland over the last century, including significant
loss of freshwater species. Such losses can seriously threaten sustainable development because
water-related ecosystems underpin other SDGs, in particular those relating to food and energy
production, biodiversity, and ecosystems on land and sea. Protecting and restoring water-related
ecosystems could not be achieved without progress on these other goals and vice versa. Water-related
ecosystems tended to be managed for short-term gain at the expense of long-term benefits,
and large-scale human activities threatened to degrade and destroy them [17]. This target sought to
halt ecosystem degradation and destruction and to assist in recovering those already degraded.
Indicator 6.6.1 brought together information on four categories of ecosystems: vegetated wetlands
(including swamps, swamp forests, marshes, paddies, peatlands, and mangroves), open-water
bodies (such as lakes and reservoirs), rivers and estuaries, and groundwater. Four sub-indicators
(spatial extent, water quantity, water quality, and ecosystem health) described different aspects of
these ecosystems.
The report suggested that global data used during the SDG process did not reflect the
well-established concerns and trends on freshwater-ecosystem degradation that other data sources
show. Data-collection systems did not differentiate between natural and artificial water bodies, such as
reservoirs, dams, and rice paddies. All have been increasing in most regions, while natural wetlands
were in decline.
The global indicator was helpful in highlighting these issues but was considered too broad for
decision-making. Insufficient data were generated by countries to adequately measure progress.
Further detailed data (quantitative, geospatial, and qualitative) would be essential for a more accurate
understanding of water-related ecosystems and the benefits they provide. Earth observations could
complement local ground data and support the national burden of acquisition and reporting. Member
States were advised to strengthen operational capacity and increase financial resources, implement
clear roles and responsibilities for data collection and processing, and ensure political will at the highest
level. Monitoring at ecosystem level and at basin scale was important. The local level would provide
evidence for practical action, while larger basin monitoring would provide an overall perspective
within hydrological boundaries.
Monitoring also revealed a variety of opportunities, such as monitoring change over time.
Understanding how ecosystems were changing could provide evidence of their value that could
underpin decision-making towards their future protection and restoration.

4.6. Target 6a—Cooperation and Capacity Building

International cooperation and building (developing) capacity contributed to all the SDG targets,
but the report suggested they need to be better understood and the monitoring framework improved
over time, possibly with additional indicators. Cooperation was largely about funding and was
strongly focused on external support. Substantially more funding was needed to reach SDG 6 Targets
6.1 to 6.6. Currently, data are insufficient to assess the extent to which overseas development aid was
included in government spending plans. Most data available were from the WASH sector because of
the extensive availability of GLASS data. Few data were available on other water-related investments
Water 2018, 10, 1353 12 of 22

and on funding for the recurring costs of operation and maintenance. There was as yet no indicator
for capacity development related to the full scope of SDG 6. Data available on capacity needs and
progress were largely limited to the WASH sector (see Capacity Development below).

4.7. Target 6b—Stakeholder Participation

Effective and sustainable water management depended on stakeholders participating in decisions
linked to water development. Singto et al. [18] concluded that “participation should be institutionalized
and facilitated in a way that fosters accountable representation by all stakeholders, builds trust,
and‘recognizes stakeholder interests and knowledge”.
In 2015, over 75% of countries reported having clearly defined policies and procedures in place
for service users and communities to participate in planning programs for drinking water supply
(urban: 79%, rural: 85%) and sanitation (urban: 79%, rural: 81%) [19]. For water-resource planning and
management, 83% of reporting countries had policies and procedures in place.
Although these results look encouraging, there were concerns over how participation was
monitored and, as such, the monitoring framework was still under development. Current
measurements were based only on the numbers of people involved in participation, whereas the
target needed a clearer set of indicators that included the quality of participation, such as nature,
effectiveness, and value.
The data for this indicator mostly came from the WASH sector, although steps were in place
to include data from other activities, such as IWRM. Monitoring needed to give a “voice” to other
groups, particularly those in agriculture where there is a long tradition of farmer participation in
water-user associations.

5. Data Acquisition
The UN-Water Integrated Monitoring Initiative for SDG 6 (For more information: http://www.
sdg6monitoring.org/) highlighted concerns over the lack of data both for the indicators and for
national planning and decision-making. The report gave emphasis to that well-known statement,
“We cannot plan and manage what we do not measure and monitor”. Data were at the heart of
decision-making, providing the raw material for accountability. Data also underpinned good water
governance, enabling decision-making to move from political whim towards sound evidence-based
planning. Whittington et al. [20] argued it was imperative that governments performed the analytical
work required to understand complex hydrological systems and to determine the economic costs and
benefits of policy interventions.
Overall, less than half of Member States had comparable data on progress towards each of the
SDG indicators. The average Member State only reported on one-third of the SDG 6 indicators and
only 6% reported on more than eight out of the 11 indicators (Figure 2). No country reported on all
indicators and 6% did not report on any indicator. This represented a major knowledge gap, and the
challenge of acquiring sufficient data should not be underestimated.
To help resolve this problem, in 2016–2018 a major integrated monitoring program was established
to provide support tools to Member States to help generate and compile data. Initially, 30 countries
were selected to engage in long-term institution building to monitor SDG 6 indicators, with encouraging
early results (green in Figure 2). More are expected to follow as the UN commits to continue this
program of support. This is likely to bring benefits not only to improved monitoring and reporting on
SDG 6, but also in providing data for national and local water-resource planning.
One notable exception was data acquisition for water supply and sanitation (SDG 6.1 and 6.2).
Most countries tended to be comparable and data-rich in terms of WASH because the data-collection
systems were well-developed during the MDG period. This early establishment meant that WASH
targets had a head start on other targets in terms of reporting and particularly in establishing trends.
The 2016/2017 GLASS survey indicated that nearly 70% of countries had data available to support
resource allocation for drinking water and sanitation (Figure 3). However, WASH now had several
Water 2018, 10, 1353 13 of 22

new indicators for safely managed services and data collection and analysis, for these were proving to
be a challenge
Water for PEER
2018, 10, x FOR someREVIEW
countries. 13 of 22

Figure 2. Proportion of countries reporting on SDG 6 indicators 2016–2018. Source: [1].

3. Data
Figure 3. Datacollected
collectedand
andused
usedtoto inform
inform decisions
decisions on on resource
resource allocation
allocation (65 countries).
(65 countries). Source:
Source: [19].
[19].
What lessons could be learned from SDG 6 data acquisition and monitoring? The report
highlighted the lack of
What lessons readiness
could among from
be learned many SDG
countries to report
6 data on the SDG
acquisition and 6monitoring?
targets. Not surprisingly,
The report
some countries,
highlighted theusually
lack ofthe more developed
readiness among andmany data-rich,
countrieshadtothe capacity
report on to
thecollect
SDGdata, to analyze,
6 targets. Not
and report. Others,
surprisingly, some mostly the less-developed,
countries, usually the more had only limited
developed anddata and all too
data-rich, hadoften lacked capacity,
the capacity in
to collect
terms of analyze,
data, to people, equipment
and report. to Others,
collect data, funding,
mostly and a national infrastructure
the less-developed, had only limited to process and all
data and report.
too
Some
often countries had valuable
lacked capacity, datasets
in terms but not in
of people, a format compatible
equipment to collect with
data,the requirements
funding, and afor SDGs,
national
while others had
infrastructure todata scattered
process and in ministries,
report. Someuniversities,
countries hadlaboratories,
valuableand private-sector
datasets but notorganizations
in a format
with little capacity
compatible with theto integrate these resources
requirements for SDGs,withinwhilea national
others hadcollection
data point, suchinas ministries,
scattered a national
statistics office.
universities, Scattered data
laboratories, andsources can also bring
private-sector problems with
organizations of willingness to invest
little capacity to and participate,
integrate these
as well as within
resources issues of standardization,
a national collectioncredibility,
point, suchtransparency,
as a nationalaccountability,
statistics office.and acceptability.
Scattered data sources
can also bring problems of willingness to invest and participate, as well as issues of standardization,
credibility, transparency, accountability, and acceptability.
Many countries did not have the infield data-collection systems in place to acquire even the
most basic information on climate, rivers flows, and water quality. The resource implications of
monitoring were also highlighted both in terms of staff schedules and budgets, and through better
Water 2018, 10, 1353 14 of 22

Many countries did not have the infield data-collection systems in place to acquire even the
most basic information on climate, rivers flows, and water quality. The resource implications of
monitoring were also highlighted both in terms of staff schedules and budgets, and through better
coordination among ministries and departments. As part of the 2030 Agenda, the UN promoted an
integrated approach to data acquisition as a means of reducing time and costs by exploiting synergies
and reducing overlaps in monitoring efforts.
Regional monitoring initiatives were another key element of the monitoring landscape. Regional
organizations received data from national governments that were used for global monitoring.
Examples included the European Union’s Water Framework Directive that sets standards and
monitors water quality in rivers and is often described as Europe’s approach to IWRM. Another
was the Pan-African Monitoring and Reporting System (http://www.africawat-sanreports.org) that
harmonized monitoring and reporting on water and sanitation indicators for the whole of Africa while
linking with other global monitoring and reporting processes. The African Ministers’ Council on
Water (AMCOW), which leads Pan-African monitoring, has worked closely with both countries and
international organizations to ensure alignment.
Other targets, such as those for water scarcity and quality, water-use efficiency, IWRM, and
water-related ecosystems, were new elements in the 2030 Agenda and so too were their indicators.
To compensate for the lack of national data, some new indicators, such as water-use efficiency and
water scarcity, relied on internationally available datasets, such as AQUASTAT, which has a long,
established record of capturing national water resources and water-use data [7].
Data acquisition required time and funding, and international donors were often reluctant
to fund data acquisition and preferred innovative and exciting ideas related to modeling and IT
or visualizations. This challenge was not limited to developing countries: the USGS Hydrologic
Monitoring Network Stability identified stations where normal data-collection operations had become
unstable due to lack of funding (https://water.usgs.gov/networks/fundingstability/). Ways of
overcoming the official and/or on-site data problem include the use of Earth observation, such as in
monitoring open-water aquatic ecosystems, the use of citizen science, and acquiring private-sector data.
The Statistics Division of the UN has prepared a handbook introducing the use of Earth observation
data for official statistics, sources available, and methodologies for producing statistics [21]. The World
Bank has also produced a report especially dedicated to the use of Earth observation for water
management [22]. However, these innovative approaches have not yet been sufficiently incorporated
into routine data-monitoring systems at all levels. Research is needed to map alternative ways of
acquiring data, establishing common metrics, developing methods of capture, and ensuring the
effective use of these data for water management and decision-making, at the local and national level
in developing countries.
The UN suggested models for SDG 6 reporting based around national statistical systems (Figure 4).
However, there were concerns that monitoring should align with existing systems rather than impose
additional monitoring burdens on Member States. Moreover, more institutional and technical capacity
for monitoring was needed.
and ensuring the effective use of these data for water management and decision-making, at the local
and national level in developing countries.
The UN suggested models for SDG 6 reporting based around national statistical systems
(Figure 4). However, there were concerns that monitoring should align with existing systems rather
than 2018,
Water impose additional monitoring burdens on Member States. Moreover, more institutional
10, 1353 and
15 of 22
technical capacity for monitoring was needed.

Figure 4. Data flow in SDG reporting, highlighting the central role of the National Statistical System.
Source: [1].

6. Capacity Development
Capacity development across the 2030 Agenda is generally covered in SDG 4 (quality education),
SDG 17 (means of implementation), and SDG 6. Although Target 6.a did refer to capacity building,
there is as yet no indicator to explicitly monitor it.
Capacity development in developing countries is not a new problem. It has been a leading
concern and constraint on water-related development for many decades [23,24]. In 2002, UNDP
held a High-Level Round Table on Capacity Development in Accra and highlighted concerns about
capacity development and the role of technical cooperation in meeting the demand for increased
capacity in many developmental sectors, not just water. UNDP [25] defined capacity development
as: “including both attainment of skills and the capabilities to use them” but the key questions posed
were: “which skills and whose capabilities?” UNDP concluded that there were no easy answers
because each development context was unique and continually changing. Solutions were specific
to the circumstances of countries and communities, and this made capacity development such an
inexact science.
The report indicated that the water sector had an acute lack of strong, formal and informal
institutions and human resources to underpin good water governance. It also indicated that these
deficiencies limited water-resource development and management in all its facets, across most
developing countries, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and south and Southeast Asia [26–28]. Indirect
evidence also came from research that linked water with economic growth [29]. This demonstrated
that countries with highly variable and “difficult” hydrology (“Difficult” hydrology affects most
developing countries where rainfall is seasonal and intensive with variations exceeding 40%–50% of
long-term averages, and there are extremes of floods and droughts that make infrastructure more
expensive. In contrast, “easy” hydrology occurs when rainfall is more reliable; it is mostly within
15%–20% of long-term averages and its intensity is modest [29]) and low investment in water security
experienced low growth. In turn, this implied not only a lack of funding but also a lack of intuitional
and human capacity to absorb investment.
In the 1980s, strategic planning for human resource (HR) development (known then as manpower
planning) was proposed to improve the ‘science’ of assessing the supply and demand for HR
in irrigated agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa [30,31]. This provided an analytical
framework for assessing requirements at all levels from vocational to professional based on projected
rates of irrigation development. The methodology accounted for both quantity and quality of HR, the
institutional requirements, and provided numerical projections of HR needs and proposals for training.
Water 2018, 10, 1353 16 of 22

This approach may be somewhat dated, but the principles were still sound, and the approach could
have strong relevance across the today’s water sector.
Water Developing
2018, 10, x FORcapacity
PEER REVIEW
was reported as people-centered, but people can only function well within 16 of 22
strong institutional structures that can only exist within a stable enabling environment (Figure 5).
rain-fed farming [24].HR
Much water-related Thedevelopment
increasing involvement
has failed toofdeliver
the private sector
results in agriculture
because andaway
it has shied irrigation
from
was creating new demands for more-responsive government agencies. Skills
addressing fundamental weaknesses in organizations [23]. Recent surveys provided evidence of such as organizing
stakeholders
shortages in humanand openly providing
resources information
in the WASH sector for
[32].activities like of
Nearly half contracting and tendering
the 74 countries surveyed were
for a
increasingly sought by government agencies as the role of governments changed from
global status update in 2011 were unable to state how many staff members were working in the sector. provider to
enabler. A lack of qualified professionals and technicians weakened the institutions
Only one-third of 94 countries surveyed had comprehensive human-resource strategies for WASH that provided
water governance.
services in urban and rural areas [33].

Figure 5.
Figure Conceptual framework
5. Conceptual framework for
for capacity
capacity development. Source: [34].
development. Source: [34].

HR shortages were reported in all key areas, including: agriculture and irrigated farming;
On the supply side of HR development, tertiary education in many developing countries often
water-related risk management; water and sanitation services; wastewater treatment, recycling, and
lacked experienced teachers, salaries were low, and laboratories and facilities were poor. There was
reuse technologies; and desalination. Every investment in water infrastructure was at risk and
over-reliance on traditional curriculum, which tended to be engineering- and science-oriented, and
may even be ineffective if not accompanied with capacity-development programs to ensure proper
which did not adequately address the needs of modern water management, the environment, and
management and maintenance.
the realities of local socioeconomic circumstances.
Across the agriculture sector, which is a key area supporting food security, nutrition, and health,
On the demand side, the water sector often lacked incentives and career structures to attract
skills and capabilities were lacking in irrigated farming and in water conservation for rain-fed
young professionals who preferred more lucrative and financially rewarding and progressive
farming [24]. The increasing involvement of the private sector in agriculture and irrigation was creating
careers in the expanding private sector. One World Bank irrigation consultant, experienced in large
new demands for more-responsive government agencies. Skills such as organizing stakeholders and
irrigation schemes in India, suggested that irrigated agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa was ‘too
openly providing information for activities like contracting and tendering were increasingly sought by
small’, meaning that it was not possible to develop exciting career pathways for young engineers to
government agencies as the role of governments changed from provider to enabler. A lack of qualified
climb as was the case in India (personal communication). The sector also carried a stigma that made
professionals and technicians weakened the institutions that provided water governance.
it difficult to attract professionals, particularly those willing to work in rural areas where risks to
On the supply side of HR development, tertiary education in many developing countries often
health were high [28].
lacked experienced teachers, salaries were low, and laboratories and facilities were poor. There was
Education and training programs provided a foundation for building much-needed human
over-reliance on traditional curriculum, which tended to be engineering- and science-oriented, and
capacity in the water and water-using sectors. Many strategies have been developed to guide
which did not adequately address the needs of modern water management, the environment, and the
educators in meeting today’s curriculum, such as the T-shaped education competency profile for
realities of local socioeconomic circumstances.
water professionals [35]. This recommended that effective water professionals should have in-depth
On the demand side, the water sector often lacked incentives and career structures to attract
knowledge of one discipline (vertical leg of the T) plus broader professional and personal
young professionals who preferred more lucrative and financially rewarding and progressive careers
competencies, and a basic understanding of other disciplines (horizontal bar of the T). The expertise
in the expanding private sector. One World Bank irrigation consultant, experienced in large irrigation
required across the water sector at all levels of education, in numerous agencies, communities,
schemes in India, suggested that irrigated agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa was ‘too small’, meaning
schools and private companies, was extremely broad and complex to satisfy. Strengthening
that it was not possible to develop exciting career pathways for young engineers to climb as was the
professional and technical/vocational training programs was essential for achieving SDG 6. SDG 4.c
case in India (personal communication). The sector also carried a stigma that made it difficult to attract
supported this by calling for “substantially increasing the supply of qualified teachers, including
professionals, particularly those willing to work in rural areas where risks to health were high [28].
through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially
least-developed countries and small-island developing States” by 2030. Figure 6 provides an
indication of the numbers of students enrolled in tertiary education in 2015 in the various regions,
though it was not disaggregated into sectors. There were notable low numbers in sub-Saharan
Africa, which has a population of about 1 billion people. In 2015, however, only 3.5% of students
Water 2018, 10, 1353 17 of 22

Education and training programs provided a foundation for building much-needed human
capacity in the water and water-using sectors. Many strategies have been developed to guide
educators in meeting today’s curriculum, such as the T-shaped education competency profile for
water professionals [35]. This recommended that effective water professionals should have in-depth
knowledge of one discipline (vertical leg of the T) plus broader professional and personal competencies,
and a basic understanding of other disciplines (horizontal bar of the T). The expertise required
across the water sector at all levels of education, in numerous agencies, communities, schools and
private companies, was extremely broad and complex to satisfy. Strengthening professional and
technical/vocational training programs was essential for achieving SDG 6. SDG 4.c supported this by
calling for “substantially increasing the supply of qualified teachers, including through international
cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially least-developed countries and
small-island developing States” by 2030. Figure 6 provides an indication of the numbers of students
enrolled in tertiary education in 2015 in the various regions, though it was not disaggregated into
sectors. There were notable low numbers in sub-Saharan Africa, which has a population of about 1
billion
Water people.
2018, In 2015,
10, x FOR however, only 3.5% of students (7.43 million) enrolled in tertiary education.
PEER REVIEW 17 of 22

Figure 6.
6. Students
Students(millions,
(millions,and
and
%% of global
of global total)
total) enrolled
enrolled in tertiary
in tertiary education
education in SDGinworld
SDGregions
world
regions
in 2015. in 2015. [1].
Source: Source: [1] .

Data were scarce on national capacity-development strategies for

capacity-development strategies for the water sector, but some
countries were reported to be producing them [6]. However, the big challenge challenge was was implementation.
implementation.
Increasing vocational skills was a relatively short-term activity, but producing the professionals who
could plan,
plan,manage,
manage,and andlead
leadwater-sector development,
water-sector development,and strengthen
and strengthen institutional capacity,
institutional would
capacity,
take many
would take years. In theIn1980s
many years. and and
the 1980s 1990s, oneone
1990s, way of of
way filling
fillingthethe
gapgapwas
wasforfordonor
donor agencies
agencies to
provide
provide scholarships
scholarshipsto to
send young
send professionals
young overseas
professionals to gain to
overseas qualifications, skills, and skills,
gain qualifications, experience.
and
Opportunities
experience. now, however,
Opportunities now,are fewer as
however, aregovernments can no longer
fewer as governments can no afford
longer theafford
risingthecosts of
rising
international education and fewer international scholarships are available.
costs of international education and fewer international scholarships are available.
institutional structures
Most countries have basic education institutional structures in in place,
place, but
but they too are often in
need of ofstrengthening
strengtheningand andfunding.
funding. There maymay
There be options for regional
be options training
for regional with countries
training sharing
with countries
facilities and costs. There was also a wealth of literature on capacity development
sharing facilities and costs. There was also a wealth of literature on capacity development produced produced by UNDP
andUNDP
by others and
in the 1990sin
others [25],
theparticularly
1990s [25], using experiences
particularly usinggained in the health
experiences gainedsector,
in thethough
health largely
sector,
applicable
though to other
largely aspects to
applicable of other
development,
aspects ofincluding the water
development, sector. the
including There are sector.
water no easyThere
solutions to
are no
resolving
easy this problem
solutions exceptthis
to resolving for countries
problem and theirfor
except schools, colleges,
countries and training centers,
their schools, and universities
colleges, training
to plan, finance,
centers, and implement
and universities to plan,capacity-development
finance, and implementprograms that would meet the expectations
capacity-development programs that of
national development plans. SDG 4.4 called for “substantially increasing
would meet the expectations of national development plans. SDG 4.4 called for “substantially the number of youth and
adults whothe
increasing have relevant
number ofskills,
youthincluding
and adults technical and vocational
who have skills including
relevant skills, for employment,technical decent
and
vocational skills for employment, decent jobs, and entrepreneurship” by 2030. However, in the past,
governments and international agencies have seemed more willing to invest in ‘hard’ infrastructure
rather than ‘soft’ education and capacity development, which was less visible and more difficult to
measure.

7. Research into Policy and Practice

Water 2018, 10, 1353 18 of 22

jobs, and entrepreneurship” by 2030. However, in the past, governments and international agencies
have seemed more willing to invest in ‘hard’ infrastructure rather than ‘soft’ education and capacity
development, which was less visible and more difficult to measure.

7. Research into Policy and Practice

Although there was no specific research main message in the report, it was implicit that research
was an essential part of development across the water sector. But how could research support SDG 6?
In 2004, the UN Secretary General, speaking about research in Africa, said, “The knowledge required
for Sub-Saharan Africa to achieve its own green revolution is not lacking, what is lacking as ever, is the
will to turn knowledge into practice”. This statement did not question so much the quality of research
in Africa; rather, it questioned the focus of research and the effectiveness of the pathway from research
into policy and practice [36].
Research undertaken by the Soil and Water Management Network (SWMnet) of the Association
for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA) [37] attempted
to explore the pathway from research into policy. The findings suggested that natural-resource-
Water 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 22
management researchers tended to focus on their professional interests, with less time devoted to how
their workfrom
assumed would be used in
innovative practice (Figure
technologies 7). Apractices
and new linear pathway waspapers
to writing often assumed frommostly
and reports, innovative
for a
technologies
limited audience and not enough time or incentive was available within research projectsnot
and new practices to writing papers and reports, mostly for a limited audience and to
enough time orfindings
communicate incentive
towas available
potential within research
beneficiaries. projects to
This research communicate
encouraged findingsto
ASARECA to ask
potential
more
beneficiaries. This research
searching questions about howencouraged ASARECA
the research would tobeask more
used searching
in practice questions
before about how
they agreed the
to fund
research
projects. would be used in practice before they agreed to fund projects.

Figure 7. Relative
Figure 7. Relativetime
timeallocation and
allocation funds
and for for
funds different stages
different along
stages the research
along to utilization
the research chain.
to utilization
Source: [36].
chain. Source: [36].

A
A study
studyofof‘research
‘research intointo
practice’ based
practice’ on a major
based on a UK-funded natural-resource-systems
major UK-funded research
natural-resource-systems
program
research (Natural
programResources
(Natural Systems
ResourcesProgram
Systems(1995–2005)
Programwas a 10-year program
(1995–2005) of research,
was a 10-year funded
program of
by the UK, across countries in Africa and Asia focused on improving agricultural
research, funded by the UK, across countries in Africa and Asia focused on improving agricultural productivity in
six productioninsystems
productivity aimed atsystems
six production improving natural-resource
aimed at improving management
natural-resourceto meet the needs to
management of meet
poor
people
the and improve
needs of livelihoods.
poor peoplewww.webarchive.org.uk/ukwa/target/143053/source/subject)
and improve livelihoods. www.webarchive.org.uk/
across several countries in Africa
ukwa/target/143053/source/subject) across and Asia found thatcountries
several researchers inoften had and
Africa a simple
Asialinear
foundview of
that
the relationship between research and policy [38]. In their view, policy-makers
researchers often had a simple linear view of the relationship between research and policy [38]. Insystematically and
rationally
their view,analyzed problems,
policy-makers defined solutions
systematically using the
and rationally results of
analyzed research,defined
problems, and then implemented
solutions using
them. The crucial role that politics and power play in decision-making was often
the results of research, and then implemented them. The crucial role that politics and power ignored. The research
play in
found that technical
decision-making was solutions, which
often ignored. downplay
The research reality
found onthatthe ground,solutions,
technical institutional
whichchange, and
downplay
politics, reduced the chances of good research having propoor impact on society.
reality on the ground, institutional change, and politics, reduced the chances of good research
having propoor impact on society.
Harrison [38] recommended that positive impact was more likely when research was
development-oriented towards national priorities, when there were close relations between natural
and social scientists, and when researchers were more visible and engaged directly in the processes
they sought to influence through networking and supporting policy-makers. The role of trusted
Water 2018, 10, 1353 19 of 22

Harrison [38] recommended that positive impact was more likely when research was
development-oriented towards national priorities, when there were close relations between natural
and social scientists, and when researchers were more visible and engaged directly in the processes
they sought to influence through networking and supporting policy-makers. The role of trusted
individuals, researchers who would ‘champion’ their work, was also considered crucial in catalyzing
institutional change [37]. Timing, continuity, and commitment were also considered to be important
factors as researchers and local partners took ownership of their work and research-funding bodies
made long-term commitments. A 13-year program of rainwater-harvesting research in Tanzania,
followed by socioeconomic surveys to assess the benefits that accrued to rural communities, resulted
in rainwater harvesting being adopted in the country’s National Water Policy in 2002 and widely
promoted in rural areas [37].

8. Concluding Remarks
This paper looked at the SDG 6 Synthesis Report 2018 on Water and Sanitation from the
perspective of those involved in education, training, and research, and asked the question how
they might contribute to enabling and accelerating progress towards achieving SDG 6. Three
important areas where identified, namely, data acquisition, capacity development, and research
into practice. The agreement among Member States to implement SDG 6 was a timely catalyst for those
in natural-resource research and education to engage with governments and national development
programs in all three areas. Governments will require support from the science community to achieved
and monitor SDGs. This opens new challenges for research, partnerships, and opportunities to find
solutions to complex development challenges [39].
Data are the ‘stock-in-trade’ for researchers who are no doubt aware of the major deficiencies
in water data and data collection, particularly in developing countries. Researchers have valuable
skills and experience in acquiring and analyzing data, they understand their importance in developing
sound evidence-based policy and decision-making and are well-placed to support government and
private-sector initiatives. Few governments have the resources, time, and possibly the inclination to
reinstate lost data-collection systems, such as metrological stations. If it were not possible to go back to
established technologies, the report suggested governments should look forward to smart technologies,
such as Earth observations and citizen science for data collection, and efficient tools for (big) data
analysis and integration. The private sector is also more conscious of data and monitoring as they
embrace water stewardship to secure their supply chains and markets. Researchers are well-placed to
support all these initiatives.
Researchers can also play a key role in developing national indicators that better reflect local
circumstances as well as support the SDG global indicators. The SDG targets, although global in
nature, are expected to take account of different national realities (socioeconomic and environmental),
capacities, and levels of development, and respect national policies and priorities. Adapting and
adding local indicators that do not increase the demand on services that are already burdened with
need careful thought.
The report also recognized the immense need for human capacity at all levels across the water
and water-using sectors. In most developing countries, there is a major role for those in education and
training to help develop the human capacity that countries need to plan and manage their limited
water resources in the face of growing demands for water and its services. There are no easy solutions
to this long-standing challenge, and there is inertia across the education sector in many developing
countries that will need to be overcome. Educators are well-placed to help nations to find ways of
developing capacity in challenging situations where funding is limited and the value of investing in
people is discussed and appreciated, but there is too little action in practice. Short-term fixes are often
only possible at vocational and technician levels. However, as the report suggests, short-term thinking
must not be at the expense of long-term initiatives that will produce the experienced cadre of future
water engineers, scientists, and managers that many countries so desperately need.
Water 2018, 10, 1353 20 of 22

Development needs to be based on good science, so researchers should continue to engage with
decision-makers if their research is to influence policy and practice and benefit poor and vulnerable
people. Creating integrated research teams, including social and natural scientists that interact
continuously with stakeholders (transdisciplinary research approach), could significantly improve
the chances of research reaching the main beneficiaries. Such cooperation would complement those
aspirations for integration expressed in the 2030 Agenda.

Author Contributions: A.R.C.O., M.K., and S.U. together conceived and designed this paper; A.R.C.O. and M.K.
collected and analysed the data; and M.K. wrote the paper with critical reviews and additional inputs from
A.R.C.O. and S.U.
Acknowledgments: The authors are affiliated with UNESCO WWAP (Perugia, Italy) that coordinated the
production of the report: ‘Sustainable Development Goal 6 Synthesis Report on Water and Sanitation 2018’
on behalf of UN-Water. Fourteen international agencies form part of the Task Force responsible for producing
the report (CEO Water Mandate, FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNECE, UN Environment Program, UNESCO (WWAP,
coordinator), UN-HABITAT, UNICEF, UNU, UN-Water, WHO, WMO, and World Bank); many others contributed
to the report. The report was financially supported by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation
and Development (BMZ), the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management of the Netherlands, the
Government of Italy, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), and the Swiss Agency
for Development and Cooperation (SDC). Participating agencies’ in-kind contributions and their respective donors
are gratefully acknowledged.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. United Nations. Sustainable Development Goal 6: Synthesis Report 2018 on Water and Sanitation; United Nations:
New York, NY, USA, 2018.
2. Ait Kadi, M. Water for Development and Development for Water: Realizing the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) Vision. Aquat. Procedia 2016, 6, 106–110. [CrossRef]
3. UNICEF; World Health Organization. Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water—2015 Update and MDG
Assessment. 2015. Available online: http://files.unicef.org/publications/files/Progress_on_Sanitation_
and_Drinking_Water_2015_Update_pdf (accessed on 26 September 2018).
4. Weitz, N.; Huber-Lee, A.; Nilsson, M.; Davis, M.; Hoff, H. Cross-Sectoral Integration in the Sustainable
Development Goals: A Nexus Approach; SEI Discussion Brief; Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI): Stockholm,
Sweden, 2014.
5. World Economic Forum (WEF). The Global Risks Report 2018, 13th ed.; WEF: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018;
Available online: www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GRR18_Report.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2018).
6. World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP). The United Nations Development Report 2016: Water and Jobs;
UNESCO: Paris, France, 2016; Available online: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002439/243938e.
pdf (accessed on 26 September 2018).
7. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). AQUASTAT Database. 2016. Available online: http://www.fao.
org/nr/water/aquastat/main/index.stm (accessed on 26 September 2018).
8. World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP). The United Nations World Water Development Report 2017.
Wastewater: The Untapped Resource; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2017; Available online: http://unesdoc.unesco.
org/images/0024/002471/247153e.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2018).
9. Smith, A. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. 1776. Available online: http:
//hdl.handle.net/1842/1455 (accessed on 26 September 2018).
10. Shields, D.J.; Šolar, S.V.; Martin, W.E. The role of values and objectives in communicating indicators of
sustainability. Ecol. Indic. 2002, 2, 149–160. [CrossRef]
11. World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Progress on Drinking
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: 2017 Update and SDG Baselines. Geneva. Available online: https://
washdata.org/report/jmp-2017-report-final (accessed on 26 September 2018).
12. United Nations Environment. A Snapshot of the World’s Water Quality: Towards a Global Assessment. 2016
Nairobi. Available online: https://uneplive.unep.org/media/docs/assessments/unep_wwqa_report_web.
pdf. (accessed on 26 September 2018).
Water 2018, 10, 1353 21 of 22

13. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); World Water Council (WWC). Water Accounting for Water
Governance and Sustainable Development; White Paper; FAO: Rome, Italy; WWC: Marseille, France, 2018.
14. Grafton, R.Q.; Williams, J.; Perry, C.J.; Molle, F.; Ringler, C.; Steduto, P.; Udall, B.; Wheeler, S.A.; Wang, Y.;
Garrick, D.; et al. The paradox of irrigation efficiency. Science 2018, 361, 748–750. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Shah, T. Increasing Water Security: The Key to Implement the Sustainable Development Goals; Global Water
Partnership (GWP) Technical Committee Background Papers No. 22; GWP: Stockholm, Sweden, 2016;
Available online: https://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/toolbox/publications/background-papers/
gwp_tec22_web.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2018).
16. United Nations Environment Programme-DHI Centre Partnership. IWRM Data Portal. 2018. Available
online: http://iwrmdataportal.unepdhi.org/iwrmmonitoring.html (accessed on 26 September 2018).
17. Global Water Partnership (GWP). Linking Ecosystem Services and Water Security—SDGs Offer a New
Opportunity for Integration. Perspectives Paper. 2016. Available online: https://www.gwp.org/
globalassets/global/toolbox/publications/perspective-papers/gwp_pp_-ecosystemservices.pdf (accessed
on 26 September 2018).
18. Singto, C.; Fleskens, L.; Vos, J. Institutionalizing participation in water resource development: Bottom-up
and top-down practices in southern Thailand. Water 2018, 10, 781. [CrossRef]
19. World Health Organisation. UN-Water Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water
(GLAAS) 2017 Report: Financing Universal Water, Sanitation and Hygiene under the Sustainable
Development Goals. Available online: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications_glaas-
report-2017/en (accessed on 26 September 2018).
20. Whittington, D.; Sadoff, C.; Allaire, M. The Economic Value of Moving toward a More Water Secure World; Global
Water Partnership Background Paper No. 18; Global Water Partnership (GWP): Stockholm, Sweden, 2013.
21. United Nations. A World That Counts. 2014. Available online: http://www.undatarevolution.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/11/A-World-That-Counts.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2018).
22. García, L.; Rodríguez, D.; Wijnen, M.; Pakulski, I. (Eds.) Earth Observation for Water Resources Management:
Current Use and Future Opportunities for the Water Sector; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
23. Alaerts, G.J.; Hartvelt, F.J.; Patorni, F.M. Water sector capacity building: Concepts and instruments. In
Proceedings of the Second UNDP Symposium on Water Sector Capacity Building, Delft, The Netherlands,
4–6 December 1996.
24. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). Capacity Development in Irrigation and Drainage: Issues,
Challenges and the Way Ahead. In Proceedings of the International Workshop during the 54th International
Executive Council Meeting of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, Montpellier, France,
15–16 September 2003.
25. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Developing Capacity through Technical Cooperation: Country
Experiences; Earthscan Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2002.
26. World Water Council (WWC). Ministerial Declaration of The Hague on Water Security in the 21st Century.
Declaration of the 2nd World Water Forum; WWC: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2000; Available
online: http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/fileadmin/world_water_council/documents/world_water_
forum_2/The_Hague_Declaration.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2018).
27. World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP). The United Nations World Water Development Report 2. Water:
A Shared Responsibility; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Paris, France;
Berghahn Books: New York, NY, USA, 2006; Available online: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/
001454/145405E.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2018).
28. International Water Association (IWA). An Avoidable Crisis: WASH Human Resource Capacity Gaps in 15
Developing Economies. 2014. Available online: http://www.iwa-network.org/downloads/1422745887-an-
avoidable-crisis-wash-gaps.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2018).
29. Sadoff, C.W.; Hall, J.W.; Grey, D.; Aerts, J.C.; Ait-Kadi, M.; Brown, C.; Cox, A.; Dadson, S.; Garrick, D.;
Kelman, J.; et al. Securing Water, Sustaining Growth. Report of the Global Water Partnership/Organisation for
Economic Co-Operation and Development Task Force on Water Security and Sustainable Growth; University of
Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2015.
30. Carter, R.C.; Kay, M.G.; Carr, M.K. Manpower planning for irrigation in sub-Saharan Africa. Proc. Inst.
Civ. Eng. 1986, 80, 1279–1296. [CrossRef]
Water 2018, 10, 1353 22 of 22

31. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). Consultation on Irrigation in Africa. Irrigation and Drainage Paper
42; Working Document III Manpower and Training Needs for Irrigation in Africa; Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 1987.
32. World Health Organization (WHO). UN-Water Global Annual Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking
water (GLAAS) 2012 Report: The Challenge of Extending and Sustaining Services. Available online:
http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44849 (accessed on 26 September 2018).
33. World Health Organization (WHO). UN-Water Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-
water (GLAAS) 2014 Report: Investing in Water and Sanitation: Increasing Access, Reducing Inequalities.
Available online: http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/139735 (accessed on 26 September 2018).
34. Capacity Development; Occasional Series; Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA): Gatineau,
QC, Canada, 2000; Volume 1.
35. Uhlenbrook, S.; Jong, E.D. T-shaped competency profile for water professionals of the future. Hydrol. Earth
Syst. Sci. 2012, 16, 3475–3483. [CrossRef]
36. Hatibu, N. Creating a Community of Champions—Getting More Research into Practice in Eastern and
Central Africa. Natural Resources Systems Programme (NRSP) 2004–2006 Research Highlights. DFID UK.
Available online: https://bit.ly/2QQE1eB (accessed on 26 September 2018).
37. Hatibu, N. Making a Difference Pro-Poor Livelihood Impact—The Contribution from Research. Natural
Resources Systems Programme (NRSP). 2004–2006 Research Highlights. DFID UK. Available online: https:
//bit.ly/2QQE1eB (accessed on 26 September 2018).
38. Harrison, E. Linking Research to Policy and Livelihoods. Natural Resources Systems Programme (NRSP).
2004–2006 Research Highlights. DFID UK. 2006. Available online: https://bit.ly/2QQE1eB (accessed on 26
September 2018).
39. International Water Management Institute (IWMI). On Target for People and Planet: Setting and Achieving Water
Related Sustainable Development Goals; IWMI: Battaramulla, Sri Lanka, 2014.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).