SDG 6 MoI Targets 6.a and 6.b.

 

When United Nations Member States adopted the universal, integrated and transformative 2030 Agenda and its 17 SDGs in September 2015, they expressed their determination “to mobilize the means required to implement” it. Given the central importance of sufficient “means of implementation” to achieve the SDGs, Member States adopted 43 MoI targets under Goals 1–16, denoted by letters, and a dedicated Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development. The MoI underpin the achievement of the sustainable development outcomes envisaged by the 2030 Agenda and its 17 SDGs. The UN describes MoI as “the interdependent mix of financial resources, technology development and transfer, capacity-building, inclusive and equitable globalization and trade, regional integration, as well as the creation of a national enabling environment required to implement the new sustainable development agenda, particularly in developing countries”. For SDG 6 – Ensure availability andsustainable management of water and sanitation for all – two of the eight targets are formulated as MoI targets: Target 6.a addresses international cooperation and Target 6.b focuses on local participation to improve water and sanitation management, which are measured by indicators 6.a.1 and 6.b.1, respectively. Table 8.1 provides the full text of the SDG 6 MoI targets and indicators.

WHO is responsible for global monitoring and reporting on the indicators for Targets 6.a and 6.b (indicators 6.a.1 and 6.b.1, respectively) in collaboration with the OECD and UNEP. This section focuses on results on SDG Targets 6.a and 6.b. Box 8.1 highlights how monitoring the MoI for SDG 6 could be strengthened up to 2030 and beyond

SDG Target 6.a aims to increase international cooperation and capacity-building support. It is monitored primarily through volume of ODA funding for the water sector. As an MoI target for all outcome targets under SDG 6, the scope of water sector ODA goes beyond water supply and sanitation ODA. It also includes ODA for agricultural water resources and hydroelectric power plants. Donor countries report annually on the amount of ODA they provide for water-related activities and programmes to the OECD-CRS. Recipient countries report on indicator 6.a.1 through the GLAAS country survey questions related to “external financing”. The data reported for SDG indicator 6.a.1 are based on ODA disbursements – the amount of actual payments from donors to recipients. Disbursements reflect the amount of aid received by recipients in a specific year, whereas commitments reflect donors’ intent to provide aid in the future. Water sector ODA disbursements showed an overall increasing trend between 2010 and 2018, followed by a decrease until 2021 due in part to the COVID-19 pandemic (Fig. 8.1). While disbursements showed a small increase in 2022 to US$ 8.9 billion, they then declined slightly to US$ 8.7 billion in 2023. ODA commitments to the water sector decreased more substantially – from US$ 11.4 billion in 2022 to US$ 10.2 billion in 2023 – indicating possible future reductions in ODA. Commitments tend to show greater fluctuations as donors often make multiyear commitments that are accounted for in the year in which the agreement is signed. Commitments and disbursements for the same year should not be compared directly to each other, as the commitments recorded are paid out and recorded as disbursements in subsequent years.

Alignment of donor funding with national priorities and spending plans is a key element of indicator 6.a.1. With ODA facing an uncertain future, there is an increasing need for better alignment and better internal coordination to ensure available funds are spent efficiently on priorities that are agreed between governments and donors. Reporting of donor alignment with recipient country national plans shows a mixed picture. In 2024, 30% of all responding countries reported low alignment between donor funding and national water sector plans, with low-income countries more likely to report low funding alignment compared to higher-income countries (Fig. 8.2). However, funding alignment has improved since the GLAAS 2021/2022 cycle, with over half of responding countries in 2024/2025 cycle reporting that at least 75% of external funds are aligned with national water sector plans. The greatest increase is seen in low-income countries, where twice as many countries reported at least 75% alignment in the GLAAS 2024/2025 cycle compared to the 2021/2022 cycle.

That donors rank coordination and alignment with recipient governments as a high priority (Fig. 7.4) contrasts interestingly with findings in this section that reflect recipient countries’ perspectives on donor alignment with national plans. This differing perspective between donors and recipients was also highlighted by the Water Policy Group in the 2021 Listening to national water leaders report where national water leaders of 47% of the surveyed countries considered international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water- and sanitation-related activities and programmes to be not adequate. However, for 70% of surveyed donor countries, national water leaders considered their country is doing enough to achieve international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in waterand sanitation-related activities and programmes (4). There seems a need for more mutual understanding between donor and recipient countries related to aid alignment and adequacy

Data reported to the OECD-CRS show there has been little change in the top donors to the water sector since 2015, with the International Development Association (part of the World Bank), Japan, Germany and European Union institutions constituting the top four donors in 2015 as well as in 2023, contributing 60% of ODA disbursements to the sector in 2023. However, since 2024, multiple donors have announced broad cuts to ODA, and it is expected that ODA for the water sector will be affected in coming years. While it is not yet possible to quantify the impacts for the water sector, a number of bilateral donors that have announced cuts to aid collectively contributed US$ 2.4 billion or 28% of ODA to the water sector in 2023. It is expected that the effects on water sector ODA will start to be visible in the next OECD-CRS reporting cycle.

Under SDG 6, the MoI Target 6.b is monitored through the GLAAS country survey section on “Governance”. The target aims to support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management. Strengthening community participation is fundamental to adapt and sustain solutions for water and sanitation management to local contexts and to ensure no one is left behind. However, implementing and monitoring effective participatory processes remains complex (5, 6). Indicator 6.b.1 is being measured through “Proportion of countries with clearly defined procedures in law or policy for participation by service users and communities in planning programmes” and “Proportion of countries with a high level of users and communities participating in planning programmes” for six subsectors: (a) urban sanitation, (b) rural sanitation, (c) urban drinking-water supply, (d) rural drinking-water supply, (e) hygiene promotion and (f) water resources planning and management. The data for two representative subsectors are reported to the UN Statistical Division to be included in the SDG global database: rural drinking-water supply, and water resources planning and management. The GLAAS 2024/2025 country survey found that 92% of countries (92 of 100) reported having defined procedures for local community participation in law or policy for rural drinking-water, and 89% (91 of 102) for water resources planning and management. However, only 38% of countries (38 of 100) of countries reported having high levels26 of community participation for rural drinking-water, and 28% (27 of 98) for water resources planning and management. Communities with high levels of participation have regular opportunities to take part in planning processes and may even have formal representation in decision-making processes for water and sanitation management. In contrast, communities with low levels of participation receive information from decision-makers, but have limited opportunities to influence decisions.

Community participation can take different forms and is closely related to accountability mechanisms for service providers. Table 8.2 shows the percentage of countries where at least 75% of the rural population has access to different types of participation and accountability mechanisms. The results by World Bank income group show that rural populations in low-income countries are less likely to have access to all types of participation and accountability mechanisms compared to middle- and high-income countries. 

Regionally, all countries in Central and Southern Asia (100%, 9 of 9) and almost all countries in sub-Saharan Africa (97%, 33 of 34) reported having defined participation procedures in law or policy for rural drinkingwater (Fig. 8.3). The percentage of countries that reported high levels of community participation in rural drinking-water is also highest in countries in Central and Southern Asia (67%, 6 of 9).

Participation of users and communities is constrained by a lack of financial and human resources. Only 9% of countries (8 of 92) reported having sufficient27 financial resources to support the participation of users and communities for rural drinking-water and sanitation, and only 11% (10 of 89) for water resources planning and management. Similarly, only 13% of countries (12 of 89) reported having sufficient human resources to support participation in rural drinking-water, and only 13% (11 of 83) for water resources planning management.

 Countries with a designated agency or institution responsible for participatory procedures are more likely to report high levels of participation. Forty-seven per cent of countries (24 of 51) reported having a responsible agency or institution and high levels of participation in rural sanitation and drinking-water, compared to countries with low levels of participation, where only 2% (1 of 51) reported having a responsible agency or institution. This is aligned with findings from the SDG indicator 6.5.1 survey question on local participation in water resources planning and management (for further information, see the country reports (7) and the global reports (8)).

For rural drinking-water globally, 60% of countries (52 of 86) reported they define women’s participation procedures in law or policy. However, this is far fewer than the 92% of countries defining user and community participation in law and policy. 

Countries also reported women’s participation remains low, with less than a third of countries (30%, 26 of 86) reporting high levels of women’s participation, globally. Women’s participation is reported to be highest in responding countries in Eastern and South-Eastern Asia (Fig. 8.4).