‘There are serious limits to our knowledge of the quantity, flow and quality of water in lakes, rivers, soils and aquifers’. photo credit: AFP
world water conference Hosted by the United Nations (22-24 March 2023) was the first UN conference on freshwater in nearly 50 years. It was organized in the context of serious environmental issues – floods, droughts, severity of climate change and food crisis. The conference also carried out a mid-term review of the Water Action Decade 2018-2028 (to accelerate the water agenda by activating existing programs and projects and driving water action to achieve the 2030 Agenda, especially Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6). to take forward), which envisages sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.
The central outcome of the conference was the International Water Action Agenda, in which governments, multilateral institutions, businesses and non-governmental organizations presented more than 670 commitments to address water security issues. Some 164 governments and 75 multilateral organizations have made commitments. While the commitments embodied in the Water Action Agenda are voluntary and, therefore, legally non-binding, voluntary commitments are expected to inspire the collective political will that is needed to address many water challenges.
bad finances, bad water services
The commitments made at the conference should be examined to see whether they will provide universal, safe, affordable and equitable access to water in line with SDG 6. Meeting this target by 2030 (as envisioned by the SDGs) would require a capital expenditure of $114. billion per year. The World Bank estimates that the cost of basic water and sanitation (WASH) services will increase from about $4 billion to more than $30 billion per year by 2030, far exceeding the capital costs for basic WASH services. The World Resources Institute (WRI) is of the view that commitments made by states reflect rigour, scope and ambition but lack proper finance and targets that are quantitative in nature. Investments of this range will require the importance of water, which will require robust water measurement and accounting. There are serious limits to our knowledge of the quantity, flow and quality of water in lakes, rivers, soils and aquifers. There is a huge difference in water usage figures. Water metering has triggered resistance from India to Ireland due to concerns about equal access and affordability of water services.
Funding from regional, national and international sources prioritizes new water infrastructure rather than water maintenance services (World Bank study). This has resulted in loss of service to water customers. The World Bank estimates that project recurring operation and maintenance service (WASH) costs will increase from about $4 billion to $30 billion per year by 2030, far exceeding the capital cost for basic WASH services. Water does not qualify as a global public good because it is not considered an area of immediate funding compared to climate change. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is the only international financing mechanism capable of covering more than 300 watersheds and many more aquifers across the political boundaries of two or more states with its grants and concessional loans.
India in conference
India’s commitments at the conference were: $240 billion investment in the water sector and efforts to restore groundwater levels. The 2021 CAG report says that groundwater extraction in India increased from 58% to 63% between 2004-17. This is further exacerbated by climate change resulting in intermittent rainfall, which further reduces recharge capacity.
The amended Ground Water Bill 2017 vests the State Ground Water Boards with making laws, managing water allocation and other relevant issues. State boards are short of staff, and lack expertise on groundwater resources and prioritizing socio-political conflicts.
In international law, ‘States have the right to make voluntary commitments to address issues of global concern. These commitments are distinguished from other legal forms because they are not made according to a consensual instrument to which the parties agree. They are generally independent of the commitments of the other parties.
‘Efforts to combat climate change and promote environmental sustainability have led states to make voluntary commitments to curb greenhouse gases and to take measures to promote sustainability even in the absence of a legally non-binding instrument’ . This is underlined by the commitments of states after the climate conference in Denmark (December 2009). But in the case of climate change, these voluntary commitments take place within the wider context of binding agreements: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.
The 2023 water convention takes place in the context of SDG 6, and not the United Nations Water Convention 1997 and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNEC) Water Convention 1992, the two legally binding legal instruments on the regulation of trans. Border river water course. But the goal embodied in 6.5 of SDG 6 is ‘focusing on the implementation of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) at all levels, including transboundary cooperation as appropriate’ is a common thread between the water convention and the two conventions.
Voluntary commitments are becoming an important feature in the environmental law vista, but they raise difficult issues of accountability. The commitments made by states with varying formats and varying content present challenges in terms of monitoring compliance with each commitment. Voluntary commitment is perhaps a necessary step in the face of inaction.
Anwar Sadat is Senior Assistant Professor in International Law, specializing in Environmental Law, at the Indian Society of International Law, New Delhi