Topic 1 – Understanding the targets of SDG 6

 

Speaker: Mr. Remy Kinna (UNECE, Water Convention)

 

40% of the world’s people are affected by water scarcity, and more than 90% of disasters are water-related :

 

Mr. R. Kinna (UNECE, Water Convention) said that access to water and sanitation for all was one of the key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to achieve by 2030. The issue of water was directly relevant to parliamentarians because each country strived to use water as part of their own domestic sustainable development goals. Water was also integral for regional integration and global peace and security. In the context of the SDGs, he wished to quote Mr. Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, who said that “40% of the world’s people are affected by water scarcity; 80% of wastewater is discharged untreated into the environment; and more than 90% of disasters are water-related”. Such issues were gradually becoming worse. There was therefore a significant need to address key issues in relation to water.

Water was essential for all life on earth. Progress on SDG 6, ensuring availability and sustainability management of water and sanitation for all, needed to be significantly accelerated, owing to a marked lag in almost all of the related areas and targets. It was important to note that water underpinned all of the other SDGs. There were various indicators to mark progress on the achievement of SDG 6, such as access to safe drinking water, sanitation and hygiene, water quality, water efficiency, integrated water resources management and water-related ecosystems.

Many agencies within the UN system were custodians of such indicators and were responsible for collecting and reporting on applicable data, raising awareness among countries and stakeholder agencies, and synthesizing data to mark progress. Through the use of data, such UN agencies helped to inform policy and encourage decision makers to take informed decisions and action to achieve desired results. It was important to learn what was working and what was not working so as to prioritize the use of existing resources, ensure accountability, and attract commitment and investment. In this regard, UN-Water brought together all of the various UN agencies that focused on water to help collect relevant data and ensure that the data was made available for countries and stakeholders.

Another action of the United Nations in relation to SDG 6 was encouraging national and subnational data collection. The process involved four key steps. First, the United Nations sent a request to countries, typically with estimates based on open data. Second, the applicable country compiled the relevant data and submitted it to the United Nations. Third, the United Nations validated the data, together with the country. Fourth, the country approved and published the data. Support and guidance was provided to countries on how to collect and report on the data and in sharing good practices. Parliamentarians could play a key role in ensuring that as much data was collected as possible by discussing the different reporting elements with national ministries, encouraging coordination with UN agencies to make the data available to collect in a timely manner, and completing the various templates and reports as needed.

​

Gap in data relating to water :

​

Lastly, there was a significant gap in data relating to water around the world. UN agencies helped to raise awareness about the global status of water and the need to accelerate progress. Progress was lacking on all of the key indicators in achieving SDG 6 by 2030. Building political will on the topic of water was essential at the highest levels, not just within the UN system, but also at the bilateral and multilateral political levels. Water was not an exclusively domestic matter, so cooperation with fellow parliamentarians from other countries was essential, including with countries that did not share common water boundaries, so as to share capacity, exchange experiences, and build political will and support.

Indicator 6.5.2, which related to the proportion of transboundary basin areas with an operational arrangement for water cooperation, was a concrete example that required involvement from parliamentarians. Indicator 6.5.2 fell within Target 6.5, on implementing integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate, by 2030.

Most of the world’s water resources were shared, so cooperation was essential. In the reporting round that took place in 2020, there was a high level of engagement on transboundary water cooperation, with 129 countries out of 153 submitting applicable reports. Based on the number of operational agreements in place, each country was attributed a percentage score. Europe, North America and Sub-Saharan Africa received the highest scores and demonstrated the greatest levels of progress. However, further progress on water cooperation was needed in Latin America and Asia. Of the 153 countries that shared a water-related boundary, only 24 had reported that all the rivers, lakes and aquifers that they shared with their neighbours were covered by operational arrangements for cooperation. The term ‘operational arrangements for cooperation’ typically referred to agreements or treaties between countries, as well as institutional arrangements to operationalize such agreements or treaties. On average, only 50% of countries had such an agreement in place on transboundary basin areas. Insufficient knowledge on groundwater systems was also noted as an issue, as UNECE had seen a notable surge in requests for support on how to obtain data on and manage groundwater systems, especially where such resources were shared between countries.

​

Transboundary water cooperation :

​

Based on such results, progress on water cooperation needed to be accelerated to ensure that all transboundary basins had operational arrangements in place. Several recommendations had been put forward in this regard. First, the impetus offered by regular reporting cycles needed to be leveraged. Second, although countries may not have a formal agreement in place, regular meetings and an exchange of information could take place to work on shared solutions. In this regard, there was an issue of capacity development, financing, data and information, and most importantly, awareness-raising at the highest political levels. The issue of water was not adequately understood, so actors in the political sphere needed to start the conversation. Third, there was a need to address data gaps. Although there was strong country engagement in the monitoring exercise, national data collection and widespread understanding of the percentage of shared water resources were essential. Fourth, leveraging and mobilizing expertise was needed to upscale and coordinate the activities of international organizations to provide targeted support to countries. Fifth, capacity-building was important so as to negotiate and implement operational agreements. Sixth, legal agreements should be strengthened, as they offered a solid basis for cooperation between countries on shared water or upon which to revise and negotiate new arrangements. Seven, building political will to ensure that efforts were not wasted and targets could be achieved successfully.

The benefits of transboundary water cooperation for the overall sustainable development agenda included peace, regional integration and environmental protection. The reporting on Indicator 6.5.2 highlighted the key role of institutional arrangements for peace and conflict prevention. In 74% of the responses received, dispute and conflict prevention was a subject of cooperation in many water agreements. In 58% of the responses, there was a settling of differences and conflicts. Institutional arrangements and legal agreements between countries could therefore help to prevent conflicts over shared water resources. They also provided a strong foundation to encourage investment in joint projects. In the third round of reporting, due to take place in early 2023, all countries sharing transboundary waters worldwide would be invited to submit their national reports to UNECE and UNESCO. He encouraged parliamentarians to use the national reports as a basis for dialogue to strengthen cooperation at the national, basin and regional levels and to use the information for future development planning. To strengthen the monitoring process of Indicator 6.5.2, outreach work had taken place to improve response rates and encourage countries to provide responses in a timely manner. UNECE and UNESCO, as the custodian agencies, stood ready to provide assistance as necessary to any countries that required capacity support.

​

Discussion :

​

Mr. M. Omar (IPU), thanking Mr. Kinna for providing clear guidance on what parliamentarians could do, said that the SDGs were an integral part of the work at the IPU. It was clear that there was still significant work to be done to advance progress on Indicator 6.5.2. It was essential to translate the targets and indicators into the foundation of the various legislative bodies around the world. Providing the information to the IPU Secretariat would help in that regard.

Mr. D. Naughten (Chair, IPU Working Group on Science and Technology) said that the best way to apply pressure on governments around the world was to incorporate case studies and best practices that demonstrated effective action, such as in data collection and on legal instruments. Staff members within the IPU Secretariat acted as the linchpin between the UN system and the actions performed by parliamentarians in promoting transboundary water cooperation. It was essential that such staff members were equipped with the necessary information, in particular as they advised parliamentarians. He asked what resources and case studies were being provided to assist staff members when engaging with parliamentarians.

Mr. R. Kinna (UNECE, Water Convention) agreed that case studies were an essential tool in applying pressure on governments. There were multiple case studies that could be provided in that regard. He would share all such resources at the end of the presentation.

Mr. S. Stroobants (Institute for Economics and Peace) asked how UNECE approached collaboration, especially as many agencies operated in their own silos. He asked if there was collaboration on any SDGs. Considering that approximately 75% of agriculture around the world was based on irrigation, he asked if UNECE collaborated with cross-sector actors, in particular industry actors.

In recent years, numerous pressures on resources had been felt across the world, which exacerbated the possibility for conflict. When conflicts occurred, the first victim was usually international law. He asked how the application of international law on water cooperation would happen when there were acute pressures on resources.

Mr. R. Kinna (UNECE, Water Convention) said that UNECE and UNESCO were the co-custodian agencies of Indicator 6.5.2, which involved both agencies sending out invitations to countries to collect data, and then to collate the information in the production of the report. Both agencies therefore worked together overall to produce the report. Under the framework of the Water Convention, there was a nexus approach that had been developed to unify the aspects of water, energy, food and ecosystems. There had been a noticeable uptake in case studies in countries that wanted to adopt such a methodology to collaborate both across sectors and the transboundary level. Cross-sectional cooperation did not just occur within national borders, but also internationally, as multinational companies were cooperating across borders.

UNECE was particularly passionate about developing treaties and the usefulness of international law. One of the organization’s main aims was to facilitate the development of legal agreements and institutions in countries that shared transboundary surface waters and groundwater. For countries that looked to accede to the Convention, it was often the case that there was a base agreement already in place that featured long-standing cooperation. In such regions, the possibility of conflict was lower, as collaboration and sharing of resources was already taking place. The basis for agreements and institutions that cooperated and shared data also brought the additional benefit of laying the foundation for investment by international financial institutions. With such collaborative projects forming the basis of an agreement or institution, there was a less change of international obligations being flouted

Ms. T. Jutton (MP, Mauritius) asked if there was a sufficient level of shared information and communication on the mechanisms in place. Owing to a lack of information on groundwater systems, in particular in Africa and in small countries like Mauritius, she asked if there were any proactive measures to address the knowledge and capacity gap, and if collaboration with professionals would help to bridge the divide.

Mr. R. Kinna (UNECE, Water Convention) said that UN-Water had declared 2022 as the year of groundwater, so as to raise general awareness of groundwater. The UN-Water Summit on Groundwater 2022 was currently being held in Paris to discuss the issue more specifically. In terms of Africa, the topic of groundwater systems had been raised multiple times to UNECE, especially among countries that looked to accede to the Convention. There had been significant engagement with multiple countries on different technical aspects, especially at national workshops. However, there was a marked lack of capacity to collect data on groundwater and on its management. For Eastern and Southern Africa in particular, several countries had requested support in regard to technical capacity.

One of the participants asked if there was a correlation between countries that reported data more effectively and having a higher value in regard to Indicator 6.5.2. She asked if all countries need to do better on collecting and reporting data.

Mr. R. Kinna (UNECE, Water Convention) said that improvements in how countries collected and reported their data could certainly be made. Although there was a template for countries to report their data, accompanied with an information guide, improvements to the template had been made based on feedback received from countries. Efforts were also being made to develop an online template that may make the process relatively easier.

Mr. M. Omar (IPU) said that water was a key resource in the context of the Sahel countries. A lack of water and continued environmental degradation undermined democracy. He asked if there were any specific case studies on the Sahel countries. He asked if a concrete vision for the Sahel countries should start with security or with water.

Mr. R. Kinna (UNECE, Water Convention) said that that the North-Western Sahara Aquifer System was shared on a transboundary basis, and the nexus between water, energy, food and the ecosystem had been drawn up into a case study. He would share the applicable information about the case study at the end of the presentation.

One of the participants said that 75% of agriculture around the world was based on irrigation. He asked what suggestions could be put in place to encourage agricultural firms to use technology that used water more wisely.

​

Agriculture and Water :

​

Mr. R. Kinna (UNECE, Water Convention) said that agriculture accounted for a significant percentage of water use. There was an opportunity to take a cross-sectional approach to offset some of the benefits and costs of agricultural water usage. More specifically, such action involved using the water-energy-food-ecosystem methodology to demonstrate where offsets could be found and where mutual benefits could be aligned. Technology advancements and improvements in efficiency were on the political agenda, such as the European Union’s Green Deal. There was a particular focus on water treatment, water reuse and water efficiencies, as well as investments in technology advancements. At the UNECE, there was a focus on the circular economy, which was a part of water reuse and water treatment. Under the framework of the Water Convention, there was a specific focus on how countries allocated water across boundaries and on a cross-sectional basis.

 

Legal agreements in the framework of transboundary water cooperation :

​

In regard to legal agreements worldwide, there was an integrated framework of transboundary water cooperation at the global, regional, basin, sub-basin and national levels. Globally, there were two water conventions: 1) the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes; and 2) the 1997 Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. In recent times, there had been a call from successive UN Secretaries-General for countries to accede to and strive for the full implementation of both conventions. The call also encouraged the entire UN system to provide assistance to countries in that regard. Such action was a general advancement at the international level for transboundary water cooperation.

At the regional level, there were protocols, directives and conventions with the Southern African Development Community, the European Union, the Economic Community of West African States and the Economic Community of Central African States. Some parliamentarians would potentially be familiar with basin and sub-basin scale agreements, such as the Rhine Convention and the Mekong River Agreement, as they focused more on relationships with neighbouring countries and how they interacted with each other in regard to shared waters. All of the frameworks were intended to become more specific based on the relative closeness to the water source. The global conventions were based on core principles and a framework that fostered cooperation globally, whereas regional and basin agreements were more specific to the context of a specific region or basin.

​

The need for conventions on global and transboundary water :

​

Conventions on global water and transboundary water were needed for several reasons. First, they were instruments of preventive diplomacy and confidence-building between States. Second, they supported transboundary cooperation when it was not already established. More specifically, global water conventions complemented basin-level agreements or could function as the foundation upon which to build more specific basin and sub-basin-specific agreements. Third, they promoted the gradual improvement of cooperation, which was particularly important for parliamentarians. Fourth, they supported, but crucially did not replace, existing agreements. Where basin agreements were on the agenda, such conventions could facilitate negotiations and cooperation. Fifth, they strengthened the profile of transboundary waters nationally and internationally.

The UN Water Convention was a legal and institutional framework for transboundary water cooperation. The Convention had several key areas of work: reporting on SDG Indicator 6.5.2; facilitating financing of transboundary water cooperation; supporting the monitoring and assessment of data, and information sharing in transboundary basins; and adapting to climate change in transboundary basins. It was a dynamic, living, institutional arrangement that encouraged countries, stakeholders, academics, the private sector and civil society to come together to share their knowledge and experiences on transboundary water cooperation. The Water Convention had started as a pan-European instrument, therefore the majority of countries in the region were already parties to the Convention. In 2016, the Water Convention became a global instrument. The most recent country to accede to the Convention was Cameroon in November 2022. Workshops had recently been held in Panama and the Dominican Republic in recognition of developments in the Latin America region. There was also significant movement in Africa, with 20 countries currently working through the accession process. Similarly, there was some movement in the Middle East.

The Water Convention also organized a meeting of the parties every three years in Geneva. There had been significant representation at the 27th Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC in Sharm el-Sheikh in November 2022 to ensure that water was a part of the climate change agenda.

Of the multiple direct and indirect benefits to acceding to the Convention, the greatest benefits were contributing to regional and international peace and security, and demonstrating a willingness to be bound by core principles and legal provisions, with the aim of sharing water equitably with neighbouring countries. Similarly, accession would raise the profile of countries at the global level on transboundary water. Accession would also provide access to financial assistance and donor cooperation. Numerous information documents and tools in regard to further benefits were available for parliamentarians on the UNECE website. He called on parliamentarians whose countries aspired to accede to the Convention to enquire about the status of discussions with their applicable line ministries and offer to connect them with the UNECE Secretariat for support. Events, workshops and activities on the Water Convention were also held on a regular basis for further information.

The UN 2023 Water Conference would be held between 22 and 24 March 2023 in New York, co-hosted by the Netherlands and Tajikistan, and supported by UNDESA and UN-Water. It was a once-in-a-generation conference, as the last water conference was held in 1977. The Conference would include five interactive dialogues, one of which would be on the theme of water for cooperation. The aim of the conference was to help set the agenda until 2030 and present a set of voluntary commitments for the water action road map. Countries were encouraged to bring specific, voluntary commitments that they would like to propose. He asked delegates to mobilize and raise awareness to ensure each country participated in future rounds of the SDG monitoring and reporting, as data was crucial for progress.

UN-Water had developed an accelerator framework, which helped countries to deliver fast results at an increased scale towards the goal of ensuring the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all by 2030. As a case study example, Senegal was seeking to accelerate its achievement of SDG 6. One of the key outputs was a strengthening of the management of the Senegalo-Mauritanien Basin.