This means that governments should take on binding commitments to reduce carbon emissions to levels that can keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees, and invest in adaptation measures particularly involving vulnerable communities
International development is happening in the context of an environmental crisis. The World Bank report “Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided” predicts more than 3°C of global warming by the end of this century on current global policy. With this degree of warming, a high level of climate unpredictability, constraints on water resources, and increased extreme weather are all inevitable. As the World Bank report suggests, the adverse effects of global warming are “tilted against many of the world’s poorest regions” and likely to not only undermine or even reverse development efforts and goals, but also threaten the very survival of nations and populations.
Actions taken today shall determine living conditions and options for future generations. If the threat of climate change is to be reversed, developed countries must act now to reduce their fossil fuel dependency and shift to balanced carbon economies. The impacts of climate change are already significantly affecting food prices, human settlement, water access, health, and lives.
Concerted actions are needed for mitigation of climate change, disaster risk management, and adaptation to move towards climate resilient and sustainable development. Actions on all fronts are required together as they can be mutually supportive and complementary. This requires sectors and disciplines, such as environment and development, working together.
- 1. LOW-CARBON DEVELOPMENT PATHWAYS
Current emissions reduction commitments fall far short of what would be needed to prevent exceeding the critical 2°C threshold, which recent evidence indicates will be more damaging than previously thought. A trajectory to an increase of 4°C or even 6°C would lead to devastating loss of and damage to land, property, ecosystems, and human life.The first and foremost response must be to immediately and drastically cut emissions, and help vulnerable countries and ecosystems adapt to new climate realities.
The post-2015 framework should not conflict with but work alongside the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) process in its development of a climate deal. The outcomes of the UNFCCC climate change negotiations will have strong implications for international development.
The level of future global warming will depend on the ambition of carbon cuts, which countries commit to in the next few years. This will require all countries to aim towards a new, fair, ambitious, and binding, climate agreement by 2015. Mitigation related indicators that respect the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities must be added to the post-2015 framework to raise the ambition of all countries to ensure net global atmospheric carbon stays within the limits set by planetary boundaries.
For wealthy countries the challenge is to:
- Ensure they have appropriate ambitious targets for emissions reductions, climate finance, and technology transfer through the UNFCCC process.
- Reduce consumption and waste of high carbon good, and change methods of production – for food (particularly animal products)and consumable goods – towards more sustainable, less carbon intensive methods.
- Phasing out of harmful practices such as subsidies for fossil fuels and high-input industrial agriculture (such as for large grain and soybean producers) that promotes the overproduction and overconsumption of meat and processed foods.
Developing countries should not be asked to meet carbon targets but rather encouraged to prioritize ‘win-win’ and ‘co-benefit’ opportunities for a low-carbon economy.Sustainable energy sources provide an opportunity for many developing countries to leapfrog high carbon intensive pathways and deliver sustainable economic development through low-carbon technologies, in ways that also promote local democratic ownership of the energy system and create local employment.
By reducing dependence on fossil fuel imports with volatile prices, countries can also enhance their energy security as well as addressing energy poverty. This means a focus on reducing consumption and increasing efficiency of resource use, in particular, energy efficiency, and the adoption of renewable energy.
Poverty reduction and economic growth can only be sustainable if both respond to the climate risk. There is no conflict in achieving these outcomes together – with the right investment now, we can build a strong and sustainable economy that benefits the poorest people in the world and protects health and wellbeing, but developing country actions on mitigation must be supported through finance and technology transfers from wealthier nations.
How can we formulate low-carbon indicators, which are fair and effective?
For a universal goal, applied to all countries (developed and developing), what level of differentiation would be needed between countries?
What would the objective of “making progress towards a low-carbon economy” mean at a national level?
How could this be measured at a national and global level so that it supports the achievement of UNFCCC and its processes (e.g. Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions and Low-carbon Action Plans)?
How can low-carbon indicators incorporate other dimensions of development, including health and wellbeing?
- 2. RESILIENCE, ADAPTATION, DISASTER RISK REDUCTION AND LOSS
The post-2015 framework should support actions that build resilience of social and ecological systems. This should increase the ability of countries, communities, and households to anticipate, adapt to, and/or recover from the effects of potentially hazardous occurrences (climate change and natural disasters, economic instability, conflict, etc.) in a manner that protects livelihoods, accelerates and sustains recovery, and supports economic and social development as well as environmental sustainability.
It is the world’s poorest people who are hardest hit by devastating droughts, floods and other extreme weather events. Climate change provides a new threat, as well as, compounds existing threats and vulnerabilities, for example, affecting food security and health. Natural hazards and climate linked extreme events are becoming more frequent and devastating. Land use decisions, infrastructure investments, public investments in maintenance, and public insurance coverage for the poor now have a stronger developmental and financial justification.
Adaptation is critical in order to cope with the impacts of climate change at a local level as well as the potential economic loss to countries’ GDP. Therefore, approaches to adaptation must be integrated, connected at all scales, and should focus on the critical climate impacts experienced on the ground. Adaptation must respect existing local knowledge to ensure that strategies and actions are appropriate to the local context. They must address the specific needs of vulnerable communities and local ownership is critical if they are to be maintained long term. This will require national and local government recognition of the critical role local communities play in adaptation.Support will be needed for scientists, and development and humanitarian actors in developing countries to work alongside affected communities to develop effective early warning and disaster response systems.
Opportunities provided by adaptation could enable technological leap-frogging and transformative change in societies; such pro-poor and sustainable choices must be promoted.For example, pro-poor business can support the delivery of climate resilient communities and low-carbon infrastructure. Sustainable diets, based on small-scale local agriculture and diverse farming systems, can deliver lower-carbon climate resilient food production and strengthen food security where it is most vulnerable.
The levels of public funding for adaptation to the impacts of climate change through the Green Climate Fund of the UNFCCC will play a significant part in determining how prepared developing countries are for responding to climate change. The continuum between development actions and adaptive measures is an opportunity for multiple-benefits to be realized and must be capitalized upon, for example, through integrated national development and adaptation planning.
Participants in civil society consultations on climate change concluded that indicators for resilience and the sustainability of services and infrastructure created in the face of climate variability and climate change need to be integrated in the post-2015 framework.
What would climate resilient development mean for the post-2015 development framework?
How would you define climate resilient development in a national context? Considering: adaptation requirements and adaptive capacity; disaster risk reduction and responses; and livelihood resilience and social safety nets.
What specifically would progress towards climate resilient development look like at a global and national level?
Is there a way of measuring climate resilience that could hold governments to account?
What are the ways to ensure that climate change resilient development considers and responds to the different needs of all persons, including those in excluded or marginalized groups?
How do we effectively deal with the situation when risk reduction and adaptation fails and people suffer loss and damage?
After 20 years dominated by inaction on climate change, the world is entering what has been termed a “third era” when the impacts of climate change are unavoidable. This means that even if countries instantly reduced carbon emissions to zero, the impacts of emissions already in the atmosphere are inevitable and unavoidable for the next 20 or so years. One view is that the post 2015 development framework must recognize that we are in a “third era” of climate impacts and that a comprehensive international mechanism is required to address permanent loss and damage resulting from climate impacts.
Do you agree? How should this be reflected in the new framework?
Civil society consultations suggested that development must incorporate climate change in order to reduce the risk to development investments from climate variability and to increase the resilience of poor communities and ecosystems to climate change.To achieve this they proposed a new development trajectory, where all aspects of the development framework must pass three climate tests:
1) Does it progress towards a low-carbon global economy?
2) Does it maximize resilience in the face of uncertainty due to the changing climate?
3) Is compensation and support provided, particularly to people living in poverty and vulnerability, who suffer loss and damage, when adaptation fails?
Should theses “tests” be included in the new framework?
- 3. VISION FOR THE FUTURE
The UN Task Team Report on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda offers a vision for “transformative change towards inclusive, people-centered, sustainable development.” The report contends that in order for the post-2015 agenda to advance progress in human development and tackle inequality it must fully embrace the centrality of environmental sustainability. Truly sustainable and resilient development in a resource and carbon-constrained world is development, which results in improved human wellbeing and social equity while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities.
The report asserts that our current development pathway is unsustainable and inequitable and that we urgently need to achieve sustainable and inclusive development that keeps us within planetary boundaries and ensures all people have the resources they need – such as water, shelter, health care, energy, food, education, decent work. Current unsustainable use of the planet’s resources is pushing the earth’s systems – through climate change, biodiversity loss, and threats to the water cycle – in a direction that severely threatens human health and wellbeing.
It argues that in the context of climate change and natural resource constraints, business-as-usual development is not an option. Climate change is identified as the greatest threat to poverty reduction and is symptomatic of a fundamental developmental and economic crisis. It is a threat multiplier, amplifying existing social, political, and resource stresses. The risk factors are intertwined and affect one another in unpredictable ways.
The impacts of crossing ‘planetary boundaries’, especially climate change, hit people living in poverty first and hardest, as they often depend directly on natural resources for their livelihoodsand have the least resources available to undertake adaptive action.
Climate change is adding to the challenge of achieving sustainable food production and meeting the demands of a growing population. Increasingly, erratic weather patterns are leading to major year-on‐year fluctuations in production levels, and contribute to high and volatile food prices; extreme weather events often result in acute food crises. Events related to climate change are likely to intensify in the coming years, while rising temperatures are expected to reduce levels of agricultural productivity in large parts of the developing world.
According to the UN office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, some 70 percent of disasters are now climate related, up from 50 percent two decades ago, and their impact is worsened by unsustainable management of natural resources. It is well understood that environmental degradation increases disaster risks by magnifying the hazards, increasing exposure of people and their assets and reducing people’s capacity to cope with and manage extreme events. Peace cannot be built, and disaster vulnerability reduced, if the natural resources and ecosystems on which livelihoods depend are left out of the equation.
In light of the multiplying risks associated with climate change, there was a call to ensure that the next development agenda understands these multidimensional risks and complex development challenges, goes beyond sectors and ensures integrated development support. Building resilience was viewed by some as a possible concept that could promote better understanding of complex multidimensional development challenges and how to address them. Participants called on the development community to design a new development model that aims at a net reduction in all forms of risk in a flexible and forward-looking way and includes – as central pillar of future development – building long-term resilience to climate change and other environmental threats.
Do you agree?
How do we ensure climate change is fully integrated in the post 2015 development framework so that future development is climate resilient and contributes to a low-carbon future?
What are appropriate metrics and measurements for sustainable development that go beyond GDP?
How do we make growth sustainable so that it does not compromise planetary boundaries?
What changes in behavior are necessary (public, government and private sector) to shift development onto a sustainable trajectory?
ACCESS TO CLEAN WATER AND SANITATION
This means that every person should have access to safe water for drinking, cooking and washing, and access to sanitation. This is a global minimum standard that should be applied to everyone—regardless of income quintile, gender, location, age or other grouping.Access to water is a basic human right. Safe drinking water is something everyone in the world needs.
The world met the MDG drinking water target five years ahead of the 2015 deadline; that meant more than 2 billion people have gained access to an improved water source since 1990. Yet, despite this important milestone, 783 million people remain without access. Moreover, 1.8 billion of those who gained an improved source still use water known to be unsafe to drink. Sustainability of the water services remains a challenge, as many pipes leak and pumps remain in disrepair.
More alarming is that 2.5 billion people still have no access to improved sanitation, while 1.1 billion people still practice open defecation. Improving access to sanitation is one of the most off-track MDGs. While under-five child mortality rates have been falling globally, diarrhea remains the second leading cause of death; 88 percent of which are water related. Rapid urbanization is compounding the problem in the burgeoning number of cities in the developing world.
The absence of access to clean water and sanitation spreads preventable disease and death to millions. It jeopardizes trust in governance, whether local or national. It costs 1.5 percent to 4.3 percent from GDP, stunts childhood growth, drains women’s time and energy, empties school chairs, forces needless risks, and denies human dignity. But the converse is also true. Investing $1 in water, sanitation and hygienein classrooms and health facilities yields at least $4.30 in revenue, a conservative estimate that rises as one includes tourism, natural asset protection, and productivity.
This unfinished business of the Millennium Development Goals demands continued attention in the new development framework. Access to water is a basic human right. Safe drinking water is something everyone in the world needs. An ambitious target has been put forward – to provide universal access to safe and sustainable water, sanitation and hygiene. It is no longer enough to bring services to households; water and sanitation must also be in place in schools, health centers, refugee camps etc.… and services must reach everybody within a reasonable time horizon.
We must now act to ensure universal access to clean water and sanitation and we must address head on the management of water resources and wastewater. These are indispensable elements for building a water-secure world. The new goals must inspire and create incentives for a change in behavior to sustainably manage and allocate resources, the benefits of which reach every person without discrimination.
- 1. WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) services bring about multiple social and developmental benefits that improve population health and nutrition, increase school attendance, save precious time, and enhance dignity and safety for women. Improving access to continuous, safe water is becoming more urgent as the world faces increasing water scarcity. By 2025, 1.8 billion people will live in places classified as water scarce.People living in poverty are likely to be most at risk. Even those who currently have access to basic drinking water do not have a guarantee of continued access.
Effective management and development of water resources is essential for growth, poverty reduction and equity. In many parts of the world the livelihoods of the poorest are directly linked to water resources, such as for fishing, farming, household supply, navigation, small-scale industry and livestock care. Water resources are crucial for socio-economic development and for maintaining healthy ecosystems.
Water and sanitation interventions at any point in the water cycle have consequences upstream and downstream. Secure access for more than 7 billion people thus in turn will have serious implications for the sustainability of water resources and the way water resources and wastewater have been managed and allocated to different competing uses.
The water consultations explored where, how and why water stress will intensify over the coming decades. Agriculture draws 70 per cent of all freshwater for irrigation and may need even more as the demand for intensive food production rises. Already, rising demand from farms is causing water tables to fall in some areas and, at the same time, industry and energy are demanding more water as economies grow.
Water Resources Management aims at optimizing the use of available natural water flows and resources, including surface water and groundwater, to satisfy competing needs between both users and uses. Distribution of water among industry, energy, agriculture, cities and households must be managed fairly and efficiently, with attention to protecting the quality of drinking water. To accomplish this, we need to establish good management practices, responsible regulation and proper pricing. An integrated approach to water resources management needs to be implemented – one that ensures a transparent, equitable and sustainable balance of water use that satisfies human needs – economic and social – as well as ecosystem requirements.
Do you think better water resource management can ensure there will be enough water to meet competing demands?
How can the framework promote improved water resource management practices? How can we include economically viable measures for the protection and sustainable management of water resources into adaption, mitigation and resilience strategies?
- 2. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT AND WATER QUALITY
When the MDGs were agreed to, the world was predominantly rural; today most live in cities. As cities grow and people consume more, solid waste management is a growing problem. Billions of people in cities capture and store waste, but have nowhere to dispose of it once their latrines or septic tanks fill. Wastewater pollutes not only the natural environment, but also the immediate living environment, and has an enormous detrimental impact on the spread of disease.
The rapid urbanization of populations will increasingly govern the production and use of wastewater, especially as the majority of future population growth will take place in urban areas of developing countries that already have poor infrastructure. Building sanitation infrastructure and public services that work for everyone, including those living in poverty, and keeping human waste out of the environment, is a major challenge.
In moral terms, it was unanimously recognized that it is ‘urgent’ to reduce the wastewater pollution that is among the leading causes of water borne diseases and degradation of ecosystems. Yet, this moral imperative has material economic consequences that will continue to escalate if not dealt with early.
Wastewater management and water quality discussions explored why the dilution of pollution is no longer a solution, and reconsidered our use, reuse, treatment, value and even meaning, of “waste.” Without effective strategies to manage wastewater production (e.g. its treatment and reuse) development will be constrained.
Participants in the water consultations concluded that the dilution of pollution is no longer a solution and suggested that the most readily available ways to preserve water resources and to reduce the demand on finite freshwater resources was to: protect water resources from pollution, reduce unaccounted-for-water, and collect and treat water once it has been used to make possible its beneficial reuse or recycling. The strong case for collecting and treating urban water after use is not only that it protects downstream users, but also that it can be used again for other purposes.
How should the framework reflect the need to more effectively manage wastewater and promote reuse and recycling? Should all used water and wastewater be collected and treated before it is returned to nature and managed under principles of pollution prevention and reuse?
- 3. GOVERNING, MANAGING& INVESTING
One view is that the water crisis is really a governance crisis. Discussions on WASH and governance revealed that institutional capacity is fragmented; roles and responsibilities within government structures are not clear; there is inadequate management of resources and weak implementation of policies and regulations.
Another view suggested that the crisis is less global than “multi-local” and there is no single blueprint to solve local problems. Effective governance requires a focus on soft reforms as well as on hard investments. What works in one place may not translate to another, which has different needs.
Others pointed out that while governments must play a key role in securing water for competing demands; the quest for a water-secure world is a joint responsibility and can only be achieved through water cooperation at local, national, regional and global level and through partnerships with a multitude of stakeholders ranging from citizens to policy makers to the private sector.
The consultations called for:
- Water-related capacity development, both at the individual and institutional levels. These were seen as fundamental in the realization and implementation of the post-2015 development agenda.
- An effective water governance system that applies the principles of transparency, accountability and cooperation. This will be crucial in order to promote the needed investments for developing appropriate infrastructure.
- Mechanisms to hold political leaders and governments accountable for fulfilling WASH-related promises and for the sustainability of services.
- Strengthening consumer’s rights through legislation so that communities are empowered to demand better services from their governments.
- A stronger stakeholder voice and transparency in decision-making on water allocations.
Do you agree? Is there anything you would add?
The water consultation highlighted that wastewater reuse remains a complex issue that needs solutions developed in relation to local circumstances and requirements. They suggested that rather than quantify a fixed outcome, targets must aim to improve the quality of the reuse process, with attention to cultural norms, safety of use, raising awareness and building capacity.Sound management policies and fair enforcement are best approached as local issues, which require local action for local impacts and local rewards.
Do you agree? How can the framework promote action at the local level? Is this an area for local and/or national policy versus a universal goal or agenda?
Do you agree that a
water-secure world is a joint responsibility and can only be achieved through water cooperation at local, national, regional and global level?
Can and should the new framework promote multi-stakeholder partnerships.
To address impacts and build capacity requires political will. The water consultation observed that most politicians are unmotivated, unconcerned, and uninformed about wastewater and water reuse and generally regard pollution from untreated wastewater as purely negative. Yet, wastewater management processes have the capacity to transform ‘pollution’ into assets. Rewards can go beyond public health or natural resilience to boost economic growth, create jobs, provide business certainty, increase revenues, attract investors and improve lifestyles and wellbeing.
Is the escalating wastewater crisis actually an economic opportunity?
Do you think decision-makers will take action if offered value propositions and potential solutions that show how reuse technologies bring effective, lean, and robust economic benefits?
Investing in safe drinking water complements investments in sanitation and hygiene. Water, sanitation and hygiene work together to make people healthier, and to reduce the grief, and time and money spent, when family members fall ill and need to be cared for. Agriculture and tourism also benefit when the physical environment is cleaner and more hygienic. On average, the benefits of investing in water management, sanitation, and hygiene range from $2 to $3 per dollar invested.
How can we promote innovative and inclusive and sustainable financing mechanisms? Does the private sector have a role to play?
- 4. THE WATER NEXUS
The MDGs have been and remain a vital instrument which led to a new global focus, helped nations formulate policies and priorities, stimulated an expansion in knowledge and capacity, and resulted in increased funding streams for investments in water and sanitation. Yet, the MDGs never sought to integrate the potential of water.
The structure and implementation of water-related targets lacked explicit linkages to other goals. Priorities such as health, education, poverty alleviation, food and energy security could not meet their own targets for implementation without water. The vertical nature of the MDGs discouraged effective collaboration between sectors and failed to address the critical linkages between social, economic and environmental aspects of development. Nor did they encourage a more integrated approach to tackling the underlying determinants of poverty.
Education
Providing students with access to WASH facilities has been shown to boost attendance, increase achievement and promote equity. However existing data shows that 49 percent of schools lack access to safe drinking water and 55 percent of the schools lack access to sanitation facilities in middle and low-income countries. Discussions around provision of WASH services in schools generated the liveliest debate of the thematic consultation. Contributors clearly claimed that a school is more than classrooms and desks, and cannot be called a school without the presence of toilets, taps and hygiene education.
Energy
All energy production requires water. Conversely, it takes energy to transport, treat and heat water as well as to build, operate and maintain water systems. The energy/waterlinkages are real and rise with development. Worldwide, energy uses 8 percent of all freshwater withdrawals, but rich countries divert up to 44 percent to energy production. The fast route to efficiency is raising prices on water and power. But this is politically fraught; as both resources are regarded as basic human needs, often offered free, or subsidized to families and farms. Appropriate resource valuation could reduce energy’s hunger for 8 to 44 percent of all water withdrawals and water’s thirst for up to 33 percent of all energy. Without better valuation of water resources and understanding of its link to energy, nations are ill equipped to deal with a warming world.
Climate Change
Most climate change related risks – urban heat waves, melting snowpack, longer droughts, increased wildfires, drying reservoirs, rising sea levels, desiccating soils – involve water. Increased climate variability means increased water variability, and developing countries are most vulnerable. Water is also critical for climate change mitigation, as many efforts to reduce carbon emissions and to sustain carbon storage in plants and soil rely on water availability.
Protection Of Natural Resources
Water is a natural resource. Water comes through and from nature – which stores, conveys, cools and filters it – so, in order to secure these environmental services, institutions should invest in ‘natural infrastructure.’ Natural infrastructure complements augments or replaces traditional (and expensive) reservoirs, dams, levees and canals. Water management cannot treat nature as secondary to development; rather, good management can empower people to negotiate integrated solutions that offer a high return.
Food
Water for Food discussions indicated that producing enough food for one person for one day requires about 3,000 liters of water. To feed 7 to 9 billion people, careless decisions could dry up aquifers and streams. Already, 40 to 50 percent of all nutrition – along with half of all water embedded within food – gets lost in the increasingly long food chain moving crops out from rural farms into urban mouths. Yet efficiency gains that reduce direct and indirect wastage of water throughout the food value chain, from field to fork, could save very significant amounts water and money. The “Green Revolution” warded off hunger due to finite arable land; today’s limits imposed by water call for a “Blue Revolution” that is smart about what to grow, how to irrigate, who demands what, and how to share. A more efficient food supply chain could greatly enhance the global nutrition supply without demanding more water.
Participants in the consultations contended that it has become increasingly clear that water cannot be managed in isolation and that trade-offs between these different sectors must be considered before policies are developed or investments made.
Do you agree? How can the new framework reflect a more integrate / multi-sectorial approach?
- 5. HUMAN RIGHTS APPROACH — THE BIGGER WATER AGENDA
The link between water and human rights is not new, but for many years it remained implicit. That changed in 2010, when a UN General Assembly resolution explicitly recognized access to safe drinking water and sanitation a human right. Even so this right was primarily interpreted as being focused on ensuring domestic water supply and sanitation, and went no further. However, the right to water and sanitation and other interdependent human rights are increasingly discussed in the broader water sector context of competing demands and integrated supplies.
The MDGs have generated global momentum and national progress around water and sanitation goals as a moral imperative, and this should be built on. Moreover, water is a key determinant in all aspects of social, economic and environmental development and must therefore be a central focus of any post-2015 framework for poverty eradication and global sustainable development.It became clear through the consultations that secure access to water must be recognized as a fundamental right for all, and the post-2015 goals, targets and indicators on water should be guided by a human-rights-based approach.
The thematic consultation emphasized the broad economic benefits from judicious water use, yet it was argued that economic incentives alone would not suffice to ensure equal access for today’s population, let alone for future generations. To ensure the sustainability and the uninterrupted and long-term enjoyment of rights related to water, it is essential not only that present generations enjoy the benefits of water and sanitation, but also that future generations are catered for. At a broader level, sustainability can only be ensured through the protection and conservation of ecosystems to ensure water quality and safeguard people’s health.
Water diversions for agricultural irrigation have consequences for communities who face hunger, and their implicit right to food. This too is an essential dimension of the discussion on water use, for example whether to prioritize small-scale subsistence farming or large-scale fruit farming for export. Likewise, given the grim and deadly statistics surrounding water-borne disease and diarrhea, discussions around pollution or water quality and quantity are intimately linked to enjoyment of the universal rights to health, life, and liberty.
Monitoring of the water and sanitation MDG has revealed severe inequality of access. Reducing inequalities has been recognized across all of the thematic consultations as essential for any new development framework. As one participant stated, “It is not good enough to pick off the easy to reach targets, and neglect the poorest and most vulnerable until last.” The future development agenda must aim at tackling inequalities to realize basic human rights for all; it must seek, at minimum, for every person to have equal access to water, sanitation and hygiene.
Sustainability has economic, environmental, and social dimensions and benefits. It requires looking beyond simply providing people with access to WASH services, but also ensuring that planning and budgets take into account the need for infrastructure to last a long time and for effective institutions and personnel for operation and maintenance to be in place on a permanent basis. This is a far more difficult task, which requires government leadership particularly at local levels, and a process-oriented approach that shifts social norms and behaviors for lasting change.
No one anywhere, rich or poor, public or private sector will oppose the concept of “a human right to water and sanitation.” But many will question what it really means in practice: as a right, must water be free for all? If so, how much? Who pays for the right to pipes, pre-treatment, pumping and sewage disposal? If water is priceless, how do we prevent waste? If water is free, how do we encourage investment?