UNU-INWEH REPORT SERIES 02 - UN Think Tank on Water · Water Quality: Towards a Global Assessment”, there was an evaluation of the spatial and temporal coverage of water quality

w w w. i n w e h . u n u . e d u

Global Barriers To Improving Water Quality: A Critical Review

Chris Metcalfe, Lisa Guppy and Manzoor Qadir

UNU-INWEHREPORT SERIES

02

About UNU-INWEH

UNU-INWEH’s mission is to help resolve pressing water challenges that are of concern to the United Nations, its Member States, and their people, through critical analysis and synthesis of existing bodies of scientific discovery; targeted research that identifies emerging policy issues; application of on-the-ground scalable science-based solutions to water issues; and global outreach. UNU-INWEH carries out its work in cooperation with the network of other research institutions, international organisations and individual scholars throughout the world.

UNU-INWEH is an integral part of the United Nations University (UNU) – an academic arm of the UN, which includes 13 institutes and programmes located in 12 countries around the world, and dealing with various issues of development. UNU-INWEH was established, as a public service agency and a subsidiary body of the UNU, in 1996. Its operations are secured through long-term host-country and core-funding agreements with the Government of Canada. The Institute is located in Hamilton, Canada, and its facilities are supported by McMaster University.

About UNU-INWEH Report Series

UNU-INWEH Reports normally address global water issues, gaps and challenges, and range from original research on specific subject to synthesis or critical review and analysis of a problem of global nature and significance. Reports are published by UNU-INWEH staff, in collaboration with partners, as / when applicable. Each report is internally and externally peer-reviewed. UNU-INWEH Reports are an open access publication series, available from the Institute’s web site and in hard copies.

© United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH), 2017

About the authors: Chris Metcalfe, Senior Advisor: Water quality management; Latin America and Caribbean (UNU-INWEH), Lisa Guppy, Senior Researcher, Water and Policy (UNU-INWEH), and Manzoor Qadir, Assistant Director (UNU-INWEH)

Suggested Citation: Metcalfe, C., Guppy L., Qadir, M., 2017. Global Barriers To Improving Water Quality: A Critical Review. UNU-INWEH Report Series, Issue 02. United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, Hamilton, Canada.

Cover image: Shutterstock.com

Design: Kelsey Anderson (UNU-INWEH)

Download at: http://inweh.unu.edu/publications/

ISBN: 978-92-808-6089-4

UNU-INWEH is supported by the Government of Canada through Global Affairs Canada.

UNU-INWEH Report SeriesIssue 02

Global Barriers To Improving Water Quality: A Critical Review

Chris Metcalfe, Lisa Guppy and Manzoor Qadir

CONTENTS

Executive Summary 5

Acronyms 5 Introduction 6

Monitoring And Reporting Water Quality Data 6 The SGD 6 monitoring program 6 Poor data quality and quantity 7 Level of participation 9 Capacity building 11 Barriers and solutions 11

Reducing Pollution 12 Sources of pollution 12 Industrial Wastewater 12 Municipal wastewater 13 Agriculture 14 Barriers and Solutions 15

Socioeconomic And Policy Constraints 15 Socioeconomic And Policy Constraints 15 The economy and water pollution 15 Transboundary cooperation 17 Barriers and solutions 17

Conclusions 17

Acknowledgments 18

References 18

Global Barriers To Improving Water Quality: A Critical Review 55

Executive Summary

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 sets ambitious targets for improving global water quality prior to 2030. However, in low-income countries (LICs) and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), there are significant barriers to improving water quality. Progress towards achieving the SGD 6 targets is unlikely unless there are programmes put in place to address these barriers. In this critical review, we document past experiences that show that interventions within LICs and LMICs to reduce sources of water pollution from industries, municipal wastewater and agricultural runoff have been largely ineffective. We review evidence that improvements to water quality are likely to lag behind advances in other SGD targets in countries with developing economies. Finally, water quality monitoring programmes in many nations are unlikely to be effective because of inadequate frequency and density of measurements, as well as unreasonable expectations regarding the scope of the monitoring programmes . We present some potential solutions to these problems, including setting realistic objectives for monitoring programmes, developing appropriate, low-cost solutions for pollution abatement and focusing on strengthening institutional and regulatory capacity.

Keywords: Sustainable Development Goals; Water quality; Monitoring; Pollution; Wastewater; Integrated water resource management; Point-source; Transboundary

Acronyms

BMPs: Beneficial management practicesCDC: The Capacity Development Centre operated under the auspices of GEMS/WaterGEMI: The UN-Water organization for Integrated Monitoring of Water and Sanitation GEMS/Water: The Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS) for FreshwaterGEMStat: The water quality data base operated under the auspices of GEMS/WaterGLAAS: The UN-Water organization for Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking WaterHIC: High-income countryIWRM: Integrated water resource managementLIC: Low-income countryLMIC: Lower-middle-income countriesUMIC: Upper-middle-income countriesSGD: Sustainable Development GoalsOECD: Organization of Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentUNEP: United Nations Environmental ProgrammeWFD: Water Framework Directive for the European Union

Global Barriers To Improving Water Quality: A Critical Review66

SDG 6.3.2. GEMS/Water was restructured in 2014 to include 3 main operating centers, including the Global Programme Co-ordination Unit, the GEMStat Data Centre and the Capacity Development Centre (CDC). All training activities are coordinated by the CDC in Cork, Ireland, and the GEMStat data base is maintained by the International Centre for Water Research and Global Change at the German Federal Institute of Hydrology in Koblenz, Germany.

While the global goal of improving the quality of water is a worthy objective, there are many barriers to making significant advances in this area. In addition, there are challenges in implementing effective monitoring programmess that can demonstrate improvements in water quality. These barriers are especially intractable in low-income countries (LICs), which are often the countries with the poorest water quality. In this critical review, we describe some of these barriers under the following headings:

• Monitoring and reporting water quality data• Reducing pollution • Socioeconomic and policy constraints

Recommendations are also made on how to reduce these barriers or develop more realistic goals that are achievable by all participating countries. Monitoring And Reporting Water Quality Data

The SGD 6 monitoring programme

The UN-Water guidelines recommend six “core” parameters as a basic data set for monitoring water quality in rivers, lakes and in groundwater (Table 1). In addition, other “progressive monitoring” parameters are recommended for data collection, if warranted and/or the country has the capacity to measure them. The overall strategy of UN-Water is to encourage countries to expand their monitoring programmess, increase the range of water quality parameters, including analysis of toxic substances, biological indicators and measures of ecological services, and adopt more sophisticated approaches for calculating water quality indexes. Since the SGD targets are aspirational, each country can set their own criteria for ambient water quality, including its own target values for the core water quality parameters, as well as the proportion of the water quality monitoring stations that must meet these criteria for good water quality. However, the UN-Water methodology describes a process for calculating a water quality index using, at minimum, the core parameters to assess progress on a national level (Table 1).

Introduction

World leaders have adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which sets objectives for improving the lives of the global population and for protecting the environment. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 focuses on access to clean water and sanitation for all. However, water serves as a foundation for many other SDGs (UN-Water, 2016a). SDG 6 has eight targets, including target 6.1 that aims to provide access to safe drinking water for 100% of the population in each country, and target 6.2 that aims to provide 100% access to facilities for sanitation and hygiene and safe management of human waste. All other objectives within SGD 6 are “aspirational” targets, meaning that individual participating countries can set their own targets to report progress.

To assess progress in achieving SDG targets 6.3–6.6, a new global monitoring initiative, Integrated Monitoring of Water and Sanitation (GEMI) has been developed, which operates under the umbrella of UN-Water. SDG 6.3 addresses critical elements of water quality protection and is closely interconnected with SDG 6.1 and 6.2. The overall objective of SDG 6.3 is to, “By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally” (UN-Water, 2016a).

To monitor progress in achieving this objective, two key indicators have been identified. Countries that set national targets under Indicator 6.3.1 for treatment of wastewater must monitor their progress in increasing the proportion of wastewater that is “safely treated”. Under Indicator 6.3.2, countries must define their targets for increasing the proportion of “bodies of water with good ambient water quality”, where “ambient” refers to water quality in rivers, lakes and ground water, and water of “good” quality is judged to be sufficient to maintain ecosystem functions and not be a risk to human health. The countries can assess whether the quality of their surface waters can be described as “good” by evaluating compliance with a set of water quality guidelines developed by each country. Eventually, global water quality standards may also be developed as benchmarks for these national standards. UN-Water has developed a “Step-by-step monitoring methodology for Indicator 6.3.2” that provides details on the process by which countries can monitor water quality to assess their progress in achieving the SGD target of improving water quality (UN-Water, 2017a).

GEMS/Water, which operates under the auspices of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), has responsibility for global monitoring of the quality of freshwater under


sampling frequencies and use of Earth observations). Including more water quality parameters and considering the impacts on ecosystem health.

Poor data quality and quantity

In UNEP’s recent evaluation of the state of water quality on a global basis, entitled, “A Snapshot of the World’s Water Quality: Towards a Global Assessment”, there was an evaluation of the spatial and temporal coverage of water quality data on a global scale (UNEP, 2016b).

Overall, water quality data were available through the GEMStat data base for 110 river basins worldwide during 1990-2010. However, data from one third of these river basins were greater than 10 years old. Only 57 countries reported data over the entire time from 1990 to 2010. As illustrated in Figure 1, there is an uneven global distribution of water quality data included in the GEMStat data base, with some countries participating at a high level (e.g. Brazil, New Zealand) and other countries participating at a minimal level, or not at all.

According to the Water Framework Directive (WFD) of the European Union, the recommended station density for water quality surveillance is a minimum of one station per 2,500 km² within a river basin, with a monitoring frequency of at least four times per year (European Commission, 2016). The UNEP assessment document cites examples of monitoring programmess in various river basins in the USA with site densities ranging from 1.5 to 4 stations per 10,000 km2 (UNEP, 2016b). In contrast, in the GEMStat database, 71 out of the 110 river basins for which there are data had a density of 0.5 stations per 10,000 km², or less (UNEP, 2016b). On a regional basis, the average densities were:

• Latin America: 0.3 stations per 10,000 km²• Africa: 0.02 stations per 10,000 km²• Asia: 0.08 stations per 10,000 km²

Furthermore, the selection of water quality parameters reported in the data base was not consistent, and the

The level of spatial and temporal resolution of the monitoring programme is also defined by the countries at a national level. The number of sampling stations and the frequency of monitoring are flexible and can be increased as the country develops capacity and resources. However, the UN-Water methodology recommends that monitoring should be at least four times per year at each surface water station. The methodology also recommends standardised methods (e.g. ISO protocols) to be used for analysis of the water quality parameters (UN-Water, 2017a). While the UN-Water methodology provides a comprehensive description of approaches for monitoring surface waters (i.e. lakes, rivers), there is little detail provided to guide national programmess for monitoring the quality of groundwater. There are currently many challenges associated with monitoring and protecting ground water resources (Kreamer and Usher, 2010), including options for remedial action to mitigate contamination by geological fluoride (Pandey et al., 2016), geological arsenic (Basu et al., 2014) and nitrate of agricultural origin (Rudolph et al., 2015).

Countries have the option of maintaining their own data base for water quality parameters and report their results to GEMI, or they can submit their water quality data to the GEMStat central data base. According to the Integrated Monitoring Guide for SDG 6 Targets and Global Indicators developed by UN-Water this programme of water quality monitoring to assess progress on SGD 6.3.2 is part of a long-term programme to enhance water quality assessment on a global basis (UN-Water, 2015). This programme involves three progressive steps:

Step 1: Monitoring of the core water quality parameters.

Step 2: Improving spatial and temporal resolution of national data (more sampling stations and higher sampling frequencies). Inclusion of more water quality parameters.

Step 3: Further enhancing spatial and temporal resolution of national data (more sampling stations, higher

Core Parameter River Lake GWDissolved oxygen X X

Electrical conductivity X

Total oxidized nitrogen X X

Nitrate X

Orthophosphate X X

pH X X X

Table 1: Core water quality parameters identified for water quality monitoring in rivers, lakes and groundwater (GW) using the SDG Indicator 6.3.2 methodology. The ‘X’ notation indicates the core parameters to be monitored within rivers, lakes and groundwater. Source: UN-Water (2017a).


This report by UNEP on the availability of adequate water quality data was based upon evaluating data previously submitted to the GEMStat data base and did not consider the quality of data from other jurisdictions that have not participated in this global data base (UNEP, 2016b); which could be of even poorer quality. Unless there is a significant improvement in the frequency and site density for data collected by countries that participate in water quality monitoring programmess under SGD 6.3.2, it is unlikely that there will be a valid basis for determining whether there have been improvements over time in water quality. Any water quality monitoring programmes should value density and frequency of sampling over the number of parameters that are monitored, as it will be impossible to evaluate whether there have been improvements in water quality if the density and frequency of sampling is insufficient.

monitoring frequency for water quality parameters varied from 1 to 12 measurements per year. The average monitoring frequency for data from Latin America and Africa was 4 times per year, and for Asia was 5.5 measurements per year at each station. This UNEP assessment of the data currently available within the GEMStat data base concluded that, “Because of the huge data gaps and the high variability of data metrics, a valid comparison of water quality status or trends between catchments is not feasible with the current data base” (UNEP, 2016b). The report went on to suggest some ways in which the coverage of the GEMStat database could be improved, including using existing data from the scientific literature and accessing remote sensing data. However, there were drawbacks to all of these approaches, and in the end, the report recommended setting up regional monitoring networks to facilitate the collection of reliable data over the long-term (UNEP, 2016b).

Figure 1: Global distribution of the water quality monitoring stations included in the GEMStat database of GEMS/Water. The figure was provided by the International Centre for Water Resources and Global Change, Koblenz. Ac-cessed October 15, 2017. Available upon request from GEMS/Water Data Centre: [email protected].

It is also instructive to read some of the case histories described in the UNEP report on global water quality (UNEP, 2016b). The “lessons learned” from projects aimed at improving water quality in various watersheds indicate that monitoring based on the concentrations of water quality parameters do not account for the adequacy of flows or volumes in water bodies for diluting wastes and supporting aquatic ecosystem services. It would be useful, therefore, to introduce a requirement to monitor the flows and/or water levels in surface water bodies. Improvements in water quality are unlikely to occur if large volumes of water are being

diverted from watersheds for irrigation, hydroelectric power generation, industrial process water or municipal drinking water. The overall goal is to improve water quality, but it must be recognised that water withdrawals will influence water quality data. Similarly, the timing and frequency of water quality surveillance relative to changes in discharges and river flows (e.g. rainy vs dry season; spring freshet, etc.) will have a profound impact on the water quality data. Recording the magnitude of water flows must be part of any water quality monitoring programme. However, these hydrological monitoring programmes typically require considerable investment in

mailto:[email protected]


sites, with a focus on sampling in surface water bodies or groundwater that are sources of drinking water, as recommended in the Integrated Monitoring Guide (UN-Water, 2017a). Countries adopting this approach would likely be low-income countries (LIC) and lower- middle-income countries (LMIC) with limited human and financial resources for water quality monitoring. According to the World Bank, there are currently 31 LICs and 51 LMICs (World Bank Group, 2017). The countries participating in a basic programme would likely develop their own, relatively simple data bases and would assess changes in water quality based upon the least technically demanding approach described in the Integrated Monitoring Guide. These countries might require some relatively modest training on quality control/quality assurance procedures and management of water quality data.

infrastructure and data management. Recent advances in remote sensing technologies may provide a relatively low-cost solution for monitoring water levels (Jung et al., 2010) and water flows (Legleiter and Overstreet, 2014).

Level of participation

Water quality monitoring to assess progress in meeting national SGD 6.3.2 targets is voluntary, and there are no incentives or sanctions that would encourage or compel, respectively, participating countries to advance beyond gathering information on the core water quality parameters within a modest monitoring programme that is limited in spatial and temporal scope. We predict three possible scenarios for developing national monitoring programmes (Table 2). The “basic” approach involves monitoring the core parameters at a limited number of

Level Of Participation

Approach Capacity Building

Basic

i) Countries set modest water quality targets for the core parameters with low numbers of sampling sites (focus on source waters for drinking water) and low sampling frequency.

ii) Countries maintain their own water quality data base.

iii) Countries calculate simple water quality indexes to determine success in meeting targets for SGD 6.3.2.

Web based guidance for participating in the program;

Training on QA/QC and data management.

Intermediate

i) Countries set water quality targets for the core parameters plus additional optional parameters using accepted water quality guideline values. Samples are collected using a relatively extensive sampling program.

ii) Countries could participate in the GEMStat program by submitting their water quality data.

iii) Countries could calculate water quality indexes for a range of core and optional parameters in order to determine success in meeting targets for SGD 6.3.2.

Training required in all aspects of the program, including data collection, QA/QC and data management.

Advanced

i) Countries have already set water quality targets for a range of parameters using national or regional (e.g. EU) water quality guideline values. Samples are being collected using an extensive sampling program.

ii) Countries already maintain their own water quality data base.

iii) Countries will calculate water quality indexes according to a sophisticated approach in order to determine success in meeting targets for SGD 6.3.2.

Minimal level of training required because of extensive expertise and resources already in place.

Table 2: Predicted levels of participation and capacity building needs for the water quality monitoring program to support SGD 6.3.2.


It is likely that countries that implement basic programmes for water quality monitoring would accept more intensive training programmes to build capacity for Step 2 of the global monitoring program. However, it would be unwise to provide advanced training to countries that are unwilling or unable to make the necessary investments to achieve a higher level of participation in water quality monitoring, or if there are no national programmes in place for abatement of water pollution. A more effective approach would be to develop programmes to inform government and business leaders of the benefits of improving water quality, with the hope that this will promote interest in investing in pollution abatement programmes and tracking improvements in water quality. There is ample evidence of the benefits of pollution abatement, including reducing the costs of health care (Preker et al., 2016; Wamg and Yang, 2016), improved productivity among the workforce (van Grieken et al., 2013) and attracting foreign investment (Cole et al., 2011). A vigorous programme to sensitise national leaders on the benefits of improving water quality is a prerequisite to developing effective programmes for water quality monitoring.

BOX 1: Water Quality Monitoring in Costa Rica

The Central American nation of Costa Rica is an upper-middle income country, with the lowest poverty rate among countries in the Caribbean region. Costa Rica is also a leader in protecting the environment, which has helped the country build a thriving eco-tourism industry. In terms of water management, Costa Rica has strong institutional networks led by the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) through their Water Directorate (Dirección de Agua). In 2013, Costa Rica released a strategic document (i.e. “Plan Nacional de Monitoreo de Calidad de los Cuerpos de Agua Superficiales”) that lays out an ambitious plan to conduct a nation-wide monitoring program of surface waters (MINAE, 2013).

The monitoring program will include a total of 24 watersheds located in 5 regions of the country (see map), with each region sampled in succession throughout the 5-year plan. Each watershed is to be sampled four times throughout the year, and the basic water quality parameters are temperature, pH and total suspended solids. However, other water quality parameters such as fecal coliforms, nitrates, biochemical oxygen demand, detergents (i.e. methylene blue active substances), metals and toxic anions (e.g. fluoride, arsenic), pesticides and hydrocarbons will be monitored at selected sites in accordance with the probable sources of pollution (e.g. urban, industrial, agricultural, geological, etc.). All analyses will be carried out within Costa Rica at three university laboratories.

The estimated total cost of this 5-year program is 310,197,052 Costa Rican colón (MINAE, 2013), or about $530,000 USD. There is no current plan to participate in the GEMStat program, but this may occur once sufficient amounts of data have been collected. The program was initiated in 2016, and once the initial cycle has been completed, the program will be re-evaluated before starting another monitoring programme.

Countries participating in the global water quality monitoring programme at an “advanced” level (Table 2) would already have the human and financial resources, and the necessary data management and stewardship tools to participate at a Step 3 level. Within the group of high-income countries (HICs), the World Bank identifies 48 non-OECD nations and 32 OECD nations. These countries would require minimal training to participate fully in the global monitoring program. Existing monitoring networks and water quality criteria would be utilised to prepare reports to GEMI on progress in achieving their national targets.

Upper-Middle Income Countries (UMIC) currently include 53 nations, according to the World Bank (World Bank Group, 2017). These countries could fall into the “intermediate” category (Table 2), if they are genuinely interested in upgrading their capacity for water quality monitoring and are willing to take advantage of the training opportunities under the GEMS/Water programme to achieve Step 2 or even Step 3 of the global monitoring initiative. These countries would need to demonstrate a long-term commitment to


Follow-up consultations will occur in other world regions to assess existing capacity for national-level monitoring and assessment, and training needs to address any gaps in monitoring capacity. This needs assessment is currently focused primarily on countries within the African region. While the capacity building needs of other countries may be analogous to the needs in Africa, it is probable that countries within other regions, such as Latin America and the Caribbean, south-east Asia, south Asia and the Middle East will have unique challenges associated with local conditions and practices. In a global evaluation of water management options for mitigating the effects of agriculture, Hayashi et al. (2013) concluded that “key adaptation options differ by region, depending on dominant crops, increase in crop demand and so on”. There are other challenges to water management and sanitation that are specific to certain regions. For instance, the use of wastewater in agriculture is a common practice in Southeast Asia (Lam et al., 2015), but wastewater is not used for irrigation in other parts of the world where there are cultural taboos against this practice (Massoud et al., 2010).

“Regional champions” for water quality monitoring may serve a vital role in providing direction and support for other nations within a geographical, linguistic or geopolitical region. For instance, countries that have made a strong commitment to the objectives of SGD 6 could serve as regional hubs for training and could lead regional initiatives for gathering data. It will be essential to carefully evaluate the results of the CDC needs assessment to determine whether realistic goals are being set for capacity building within various regions. Particularly relevant will be the setting of achievable targets to deliver training programmes that are consistent with the level of commitment by the host countries to upgrade their national capacity for water quality monitoring, data management and pollution control measures.

Barriers and solutions

The preceding discussion identified several barriers to monitoring and reporting water quality data. However, there are potential solutions for overcoming these challenges. These barriers and solutions are summarised below:

Barriers:

• The lack of incentives or sanctions to encourage or compel participating countries to develop comprehensive monitoring programmes so that they can effectively track improvements in water quality under SGD 6.3.2.

invest in water quality monitoring programmes and data management systems, and some training will be required, as summarised in Table 2.

To illustrate the challenges associated with this level of commitment, Box 1 describes the efforts of Costa Rica; a Central American country that is aspiring to develop a national monitoring framework. This UMIC has a high level of commitment to the SGD 6 program, has well developed institutions for managing a water quality monitoring programme and has identified financial and human resources for their programme for monitoring surface waters. Despite these strengths, Costa Rica will fall short in achieving the level of monitoring recommended by UN-Water in terms of sampling frequency and density, and the range of water quality parameters to be monitored. Monitoring of the core water quality parameters, and in particular, dissolved oxygen, electrical conductivity, total oxidised nitrogen, orthophosphate and pH, as well as some supporting data (e.g. temperature, turbidity and/or total suspended solids, fecal coliforms) should be within the technical capabilities of most participating countries. However, as indicated by the monitoring plan for Costa Rica in which temperature, pH and total suspended solids will be the core data set, routine monitoring for other water quality parameters will come at a cost that may be prohibitive for many LMICs. For even the basic water quality parameters, training in laboratory quality control procedures and participation in inter-laboratory round-robin exercises would ensure that data are accurate and reliable.

Capacity building

Capacity building relating to water quality monitoring and assessment are being coordinated and delivered by GEMS/Water through the activities of the Capacity Development Centre (CDC) in Ireland. The Draft Work Plan (2016-17) developed by GEMS/Water sets out the objectives for the Work Package for Capacity Development (i.e. WP3). Several tasks and timelines are identified to implement the training programme that will be needed to achieve the SGD 6 targets. There are also Work Packages for Networking (i.e. WP 4) and Outreach (i.e. WP5) that will require extensive coordination and the participation of the Regional Hubs (UNEP, 2016a). Some of these hubs are already in place (e.g. Latin America and Caribbean region), while other hubs are under development. A Capacity Development Needs Assessment is currently being conducted by the CDC to understand the requirements of countries for building capacity for water quality monitoring. The first component of the scoping exercise is wrapping up, involving consultation with 11 African countries with which Irish Aid has partnerships.


by diluting pollutants in critical locations, even though it is not a recommended sustainable solution over the long-term. Therefore, any assessment of the needs for capacity building and whether these interventions will contribute to real progress in achieving the SGD 6.3.2 targets should consider the level of commitment by countries to these other SGD objectives. However, there are significant barriers to reducing water pollution in LIC and LMIC nations, as described below.

Industrial wastewater

A recent study with a focus on countries in Latin America showed that policies that attract clean and energy efficient industries have the potential to improve environmental quality while also enhancing economic growth (Sapkota and Bastola, 2017). However, many low- and middle-income countries do not have the luxury of attracting only clean industries, and instead have a high proportion of polluting industries, such as mining and smelting, petroleum and petrochemical, textile and leather tanning (Hoque and Clark, 2013). The “pollution haven” hypothesis holds that polluting industries will re-locate from high-income countries with more extensive environmental regulations to low-income countries which have ineffective regulations and/or enforcement. There is ample evidence to support the hypothesis that industries are moving to countries where there are few pollution controls (Ederington et al., 2005; Tang, 2015).

In China, where many industries are owned and operated by the state, the state-owned industries are relatively insensitive to regulations and policies aimed at reducing pollution (Zheng and Shi, 2017). Industrial production in the “shadow economy” that enables firms to avoid environmental regulations through corruption often leads to water pollution (Biswas et al., 2012). A study conducted in Mexico on the results of a voluntary

• The broad range of capacity building needs among countries with varying human and financial resources, sources of pollution and national priorities.

Solutions:

•• Initiate programmes at regional or national levels to inform political and business leaders of the advantages of generating credible water quality data, with the goal of improving water quality to stimulate investment, reduce health care costs and improve productivity.

•• Encourage and support the development of “regional champions” for water quality monitoring to serve as regional hubs for training and for data collection.

Reducing Pollution

Sources of pollution

Past experience has shown that improvements in water quality within low- and middle-income countries occur primarily as a result of investment and policies to reduce inputs of pollution from industrial effluents, municipal wastewater discharges and runoff from agriculture (UNEP, 2016b). Therefore, progress in improving water quality is unlikely unless there is a national commitment to reducing these sources of pollution, such as increasing the percentage of domestic and industrial wastewater treatment (i.e. SGD 6.3.1), and adopting integrated water resource management practices (i.e. SGD 6.5.1) to reduce pollution from industry, municipal wastewater, agriculture, etc. Reductions in freshwater withdrawals which result from progress against other SDG 6 indicators (i.e. SDG 6.4.2) can support water quality improvement

Figure 2: Percentage of untreated wastewater in 2015 of wastewater treatment in countries classified as low-income (LIC), lower-middle income (LMIC), upper-middle income (UMIC) and high-income (HIC), and aspirational targets for a 50% reduction in untreated wastewater by 2030 (Based on the data reported by Sato et al., 2013).


volumes of untreated wastewater are achieved. To reach these aspirational targets, it is obvious from this figure that low- and lower middle-income countries will proportionally have to make greater investments in treatment than high-income countries.

However, there are many barriers to implementing sustainable solutions for treatment of municipal wastewater in developing countries. Experience has shown that conventional approaches to planning, designing and operating these systems have a high failure rate (Massoud et al., 2010; IWA, 2006). The traditional process of designing and operating these systems focuses on the technology, and too little emphasis is placed on operator training that is crucial to the long-term operation of the infrastructure (Murphy et al., 2009), as well as the resources needed to maintain these facilities (Oliveira and Von Sperling, 2008) and the business models for cost recovery (Otoo and Drechsel, 2017). Efforts should also be made to adequately monitor the quality of treated wastewater so that wastewater managers can better evaluate the efficiency of the treatment process (Cuppens et al., 2013).

Large-scale projects such as the construction of wastewater treatment plants and centralised sewage systems require careful scrutiny in their planning and

regulatory initiative for polluting industries showed that this approach did not have a large, lasting impact on environmental performance (Blackman et al., 2010).

Therefore, reducing water pollution from industries is dependent on both developing and enforcing regulations on wastewater quality. Without a national commitment to controlling point-source pollution from industry, advances in improving water quality are unlikely. As described earlier, national leaders need to be sensitised to the benefits of improving water quality in order to appreciate the need to regulate polluting industries.

Municipal wastewater

Effective treatment of municipal wastewater is also a key driver for improving water quality (i.e. SGD indicator 6.3.2); especially in countries where rapid urbanization and population growth have increased the need for sewage treatment. The world’s cities produce about 330 km3 of municipal wastewater every year (Mateo-Sagasta el al., 2015). Only 8% of wastewater generated in LICs undergoes any treatment, as opposed to 28% in LMICs, 38% in UMICs, and 70% in HICs (Sato et al., 2013). Figure 2 illustrates the percentage of untreated wastewater in these countries, plus the aspirational targets for wastewater treatment by 2030 if 50% reductions in

BOX 2: Sanitation and Wastewater Treatment in Kampala,

Uganda

Kampala, with a population of approximately 1.35 million inhabitants, is the largest city in Uganda. Piped sewerage in the city currently only covers about 7% of the population, mainly in the central business district. Another 5-10% of the population disposes of sewage in private septic tanks, which are emptied into the old wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) at Bugolobi. Pit latrines are the primary sanitation facilities for the remainder of the population, but there are no data on the proportion of the population using latrines. Open defecation is particularly prevalent in the Bwasie slum situated in the flood plain of the city, which is frequently inundated with storm water. The piped sewerage coverage has not increased substantially over the past 30+ years because of lack of demand (users are charged for connections to the sewer system), lack of public financing and the unfavorable terrain in the city. The current WWTP, which was constructed in the 1970s, is rated for a maximum sewage flow of 33,000 m3/day but is currently operating at a flow of approximately 15,000 m3/day. Treated sewage is discharged into an embayment of Lake Victoria, approximately 5 km from the intake for the drinking water treatment plant for the city. The activated-sludge treatment plant has been plagued by maintenance problems that reduce the efficiency of the plant. The photo below shows two inoperable sludge tanks at the WWTP (photo by C. Metcalfe).

The National Water and Sewerage Corporation of Uganda secured 69 million Euros in funding from the African Development Bank and the German Government through KfW to improve piped sewer coverage and wastewater treatment in Kampala (NWSC, 2011). Along with additional investment from the Government of Uganda, the “Kampala Sanitation Master Plan”, involves improvements to sanitation services in some parts of the city and rehabilitation of the old Bugolobi WWTP (Phase I) and expansion of sewerage coverage to an expected 30% of the population and construction of three new wastewater treatment plants (Phase II). However, this plan will still leave a substantial part of the city without sewerage services. The contract to OTV/Cementers/Roko Consortium (France/Uganda) to design, build and operate the first WWTP was awarded in 2012, and the expected completion date is late 2017. This activated sludge plant will have a design capacity of 45,000m3/day and will also include facilities for biogas production.

Photo credit: Chris Metcalfe


unacceptable health and environmental risks (Grangier et al., 2012; Lam et al., 2015; Qadir and Mwachiro, 2017). Globally, approximately 36 million hectares are estimated to be irrigated with urban wastewater, and of these croplands, approximately 29 million hectares are located in countries with inadequate wastewater treatment (Thebo et al., 2017). Therefore, millions of people in low-income countries are exposed to long-term health risks. A shift in policies and investment to promote effective treatment of wastewater is key to improving conditions in these communities. Given the slow pace of increasing the coverage of wastewater treatment in developing countries, a range of interim measures are needed until full-scale wastewater treatment is achieved.

Solutions for wastewater treatment in developing countries could include using natural wetlands for “assimilation” of sewage (Scholtz, 2015) or in some cases, using constructed wetlands (Kivaisi, 2001). This approach is consistent with the recent concept of “Nature-Based Solutions” (NBS), which refers to actions to alter or restore local ecosystems and landscapes to address water management problems (Nesshöver et al, 2017). The importance of wetlands as natural infrastructure is widely discussed in the context of NBS, with a particular focus on nutrient and pollution retention, flood control and coastal protection (Thorslund et al., 2017). However, both natural and constructed wetlands are complex ecosystems that require constant monitoring and maintenance to ensure that they are efficiently treating the wastewater (Day et al., 1999; White et al., 2008). If the financial and human resources are not available to maintain these wetlands systems over the long-term, economic incentives are needed to encourage local participation in the process, such as sales of products from floriculture (Belmont et al., 2017).

Agriculture

As developing countries experience economic growth, pressures from population growth, particularly in urban areas, and the transition from subsistence agriculture to cash crops inevitably leads to crop intensification and more agricultural production (Atreya et al., 2011). The need to boost agricultural output using chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and large-scale animal production leads to releases of nutrients, microbial pathogens, insecticides, fungicides and herbicides into the aquatic environment (Mateo-Sagasta et al 2017; Stehle and Schulz, 2015; Sigua et al., 2010; Novotny et al., 2010). A variety of practices have been proposed to reduce this pollution, including integrated pest management, optimizing and balancing fertilizer applications and using more organic fertilizers, but these approaches have met with mixed success (Özerol et al., 2012).

delivery. In many cases, these are “prestige projects” that never achieve their aims or provide value for money (Water Integrity Network, 2016). Corruption in the global water sector has been described as “pervasive” (UNESCO, 2006), and includes bribery, nepotism, fraud, theft, extortion and embezzlement by donor, public, private and non-government organizations (Gonzalez de Asis et al. 2009). A recent report indicates that there is “no evidence that corruption has declined” in the water sector globally (Water Integrity Network, 2016)

Box 2 describes the current situation for sanitation services and sewage treatment in the city of Kampala in Uganda. This case history is typical of the challenges associated with providing adequate sanitation services and treatment of domestic wastewater in low- and even middle-income countries. Many of the systems for treatment of sewage currently being developed in low-income countries are large, technologically advanced treatment plants that are financed by development banks and/or foreign investors through design, build and operate schemes. Typically, these advanced systems are not sustainable over the long-term, which may explain why sanitation coverage has actually declined over time in some countries. For instance, in Nigeria, coverage of sanitation facilities was 37% in 1990 and declined to 28% by 2012 (WHO and UNICEF, 2015). Careful planning, commitments to long-term monitoring and maintenance, and the installation of technologically appropriate wastewater treatment infrastructure are required to ensure that sewage treatment and sanitation services are sustainable, and by extension, improvements in water quality are not transient.

Some argue that centralised wastewater treatment systems that require an extensive sewerage network are not appropriate in developing countries. Sewage collection accounts for over 60% of the budget for wastewater management in a centralised system (Massoud et al., 2009). Decentralised or “cluster” systems where wastewater is collected from a small number of households may be a more appropriate and affordable treatment option in low- and even middle-income countries (Nansubuga et al., 2016). Financial incentives for operating these systems can be found through resource recovery, such as payments for irrigation with treated wastewater, phosphorus recovery, and production of biogas and organic fertilizer (Otoo and Dreschel, 2017; Verbyla et al., 2013; Mihelcic et al., 2011; Brissaud, 2010; Verstraete et al., 2009).

Decentralised wastewater treatment can be integrated into “distributed” treatment systems at a watershed scale that also intercept and treat agricultural runoff and industrial effluents (Burgara-Montero et al., 2012). Currently, the use of untreated wastewater for irrigation provides critical economic and social benefits to poor communities, but this often comes at the expense of


the region and a lack of incentives for wealthy farmers in the uplands (Schulz et al., 2015). Therefore, new models are needed to promote the protection of the ecosystem services by natural wetlands and riparian zones, or to use green technologies to achieve water management goals.


From the discussion above, we can identify several barriers to reducing water pollution from both point sources and non-point sources in low and lower-middle income countries, and we can also identify some solutions:

Barriers:

•• The movement of polluting industries to low and lower-middle income countries.

• The focus on expensive and complex centralised systems for wastewater treatment.

• The difficulty in controlling non-point source pollution from agriculture.

Solutions:

•• Encourage and support the development of appropriate, low-cost technologies for pollution abatement, including Nature-Based Solutions, and develop incentive programmes for maintaining these systems.

•• Utilise decentralised systems to treat municipal wastewater, and distributed treatment systems to intercept point and non-point source pollution at the watershed scale.

Socioeconomic And Policy Constraints The economy and water pollution

Many studies have identified a linkage between environmental degradation and measures of income at national or regional scales, such as per-capita GDP or household income. The “Environmental Kuznets Curve” (EKC) hypothesis predicts that the quality of the environment will decline as per-capita GDP increases, due to increased agricultural production, industrialization and urbanization. According to this hypothesis, as GDP increases further and technologies and regulations are put into place to curb pollution, environmental quality will improve, leading to a U-shaped relationship between environmental quality and economic growth (Dinda, 2004). There is evidence that the EKC hypothesis is valid for some types of pollutants, such as CO2 emissions (Dinda, 2004). However, other studies have shown that the data do not support the EKC hypothesis for relationships between economic trends and improvements in water quality (Paudel et al, 2005; Cole et al., 2011; Wong and

The challenges to address these problems effectively are multiple. First, unlike sewage and industrial wastewater, most agricultural pollution does not come from a specific source, but is dispersed across the landscape (i.e. non-point source pollution), and therefore it is very difficult to regulate effectively. When agricultural pollution has a clear source and is easier to control, like intensive large-scale livestock rearing, the problem is the lack of enforcement of existing regulations. Also, in many countries, current pollution loads from agriculture, their pathways to water bodies and the subsequent effects on water quality have not been well quantified, and data are patchy and scattered, posing challenges to set baselines and planning for pollution control. Additionally, farmers frequently lack the awareness and the incentives for adopting BMPs. Furthermore, there is frequently not enough policy coherence. For example, subsidies to the purchase of agrochemicals provide a perverse incentive for over-use (Mateo-Sagasta et al 2017; Mateo-Sagasta and Tare 2016; SACEP 2014)

Integrated water resource management (IWRM) has been proposed as an approach to improve water stewardship in both low-income and high-income countries, but applications of this approach in the real world have “left much to be desired” (Biswas, 2008). Problems related to implementation of IWRM include institutional barriers, as well as confusion over a clear definition of what is included in the IWRM process (Grigg, 2008). Sustainable Development Goal target 6.5 focuses on increasing the application of IWRM practices as a solution for improving water quality, as well as ecological services. However, experience over the past 20+ years has shown that there are significant barriers to overcome in achieving success with the IWRM approach. In 2012, UN-Water reported that 33% of countries surveyed were only in the initial stages of developing and implementing IWRM plans, while 13% had made some progress, and only 50% had made significant progress (UN-Water, 2012).

IWRM includes a range of Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) that can be used to mitigate the impacts of the loss of soils, and the runoff of pathogens, nutrients and contaminants from agricultural lands to bodies of water. These BMPs include protecting or restoring vegetated buffer strips and riparian zones (Ohliger and Schulz, 2010; Gyawali et al., 2013), and either establishing or protecting wetlands that collect runoff from agricultural fields (Gregoire et al., 2009). Despite the advantages of these approaches, there is often a lack of incentives to implement these measures among stakeholders, which can include farmers, local governments and the private sector. As an example, an analysis of a proposed payment for ecosystem services (PES) scheme for the Pantanal wetland in Brazil concluded that “large-scale implementation is unlikely” because of socioeconomic inequality between the inhabitants of


decline in quality (Figure 3b), a continuous improvement in quality (Figure 3c) and a transient improvement in quality, followed by a decline (Figure 3d). A theoretical explanation for reduced water quality even as incomes increase is that myopic governments view reductions in the levels of “stock” pollutants as having clear and immediate benefits for the present generation, while “flow” pollutants, such as those that affect many water

Lewis, 2013), or the quality of municipal wastewater

(De Groot et al., 2004). Clement and Meunie (2010) argued that reduction in social inequality in low and middle-income countries is a better determinant of improved water quality. Figure 3 illustrates some of the trend lines that have been reported for water quality parameters in relation to per-capita income or GDP, including the EKC relationship (Figure 3a), a continuous

Figure 3: Relationships that have been observed between per-capita income or GDP and water quality parameters.

quality parameters are not considered an immediate threat (Lieb, 2004).

Overall, there is evidence that improvements in water quality will not necessarily occur in lock step with economic growth. Improvements in the economies of low- and middle-income countries may lead to advances in achieving many of the SGD objectives, such as reductions in poverty (SGD 1), improvements to health (SGD 3) and increased economic growth (SGD 8), but advances in SGD 6 may lag behind progress in meeting these other global development goals. Investments in treatment infrastructure and development of policies and practices that reduce point-source pollution are generally a low national priority relative to other investments. In a recent survey of 70 low-, middle- and transitional-income countries, only 19% and 9% had sufficient financial resources to meet water quality targets in urban and rural areas, respectively (GLAAS 2017). Shortfalls in funding are only expected to increase as the ambitious targets for SGD 6.3 are integrated fully

into national plans (GLAAS 2017). Even in countries such as the new member states of the European Union, where membership in the Union requires compliance with the EU Water Framework Directive to meet requirements for “good status” of their water resources, progress has been slow in improving water quality (Teodosiu et al., 2015). Wastewater management has historically been poorly funded because it has been considered less visible and less amenable to monitoring and reporting, with lower public recognition and less political support (Winpenny et al., 2016).

A variety of economic instruments have been proposed to encourage pollution abatement. An economic penalty scenario where pollution violators are charged with fines, but can exchange pollution credits among various sources has been shown to be cost-effective and result in significant pollution abatement (Garibay-Rodriguez et al., 2017). On the other hand, incentive programmes that are based on full-cost pricing for wastewater treatment services have also been shown


• Focus efforts on the development of transboundary agreements to protect the quality of shared water resources.

Conclusions

The Sustainable Development Goal 6 sets ambitious targets for water and sanitation among nations, including improvements to water quality. However, there are significant barriers to achieving these targets. In low- and middle-income countries, there are unlikely to be improvements in water quality prior to 2030 without an understanding of these barriers and remedial action to address these challenges. Particular attention should be paid to practical and low-cost solutions for reducing water pollution from industrial wastewater, municipal wastewater discharges and agricultural runoff, including the use of decentralised systems and Nature-Based Solutions. Economic instruments should be utilised to promote pollution abatement within all sectors of the economy.

UN-Water and other agencies involved in water quality monitoring must make pragmatic decisions about the level of investment in capacity building and other forms of support provided to participating countries for their water quality monitoring programmes. These decisions should be based upon an evaluation of the conditions that are necessary to implement effective programmes to improve water quality, including the:

• Level of financial and human resources in the country

• Organizational strengths among government authorities in the country

• Commitment by the country to the SGD 6 and it’s all targets, particularly SDG 6.3

Capacity building activities should not only provide training in how to monitor environmental quality, but should also include interventions to strengthen institutional, regulatory and technological resources to tackle the root causes of poor water quality. Efforts are also needed to sensitise government and business leaders on the value of improving water quality and developing effective water quality monitoring programmes to track progress.

In designing national programmes to monitor progress in achieving the SDG 6 targets for improvements to water quality, participating countries must:

• Set realistic goals for improving water quality, based upon national priorities and available resources,

to be an effective mechanism for promoting pollution abatement (Elnaboulsi, 2011). Another approach is to use economic incentives provided by the private sector (e.g. insurance, investment funds), government policies (e.g. agricultural subsidies) or taxation programmes to promote pollution abatement. For instance, some municipalities in Ontario, Canada are now offering lower tax rates to property owners that construct systems on their property that control flooding, runoff and sediment transport.

Transboundary cooperation

There is a lower likelihood of improvements in the water quality in trans-boundary rivers and bodies of water, since there is ample literature that indicates that governments do not invest in improving the quality of environments if the benefits are likely to accrue in territories outside of the country where pollution control measures are needed (Sigman, 2002). This is a major barrier to improvements in water quality, since 286 surface water basins, comprising approximately 60% of all freshwater supplies, cross international boundaries, as do nearly 600 aquifers (IW:Science, 2012). In a study of water quality improvements in the Netherlands, Delink et al. (2011) observed that efforts to reduce domestic emissions were ineffective if surrounding countries did not have stringent pollution abatement policies to reduce emissions into shared watersheds. Without international agreements and coherent, cross-border policies and programmes and supportive institutions that address the socioeconomic, geopolitical and governance factors that contribute to poor water quality in transboundary waters, countries are unlikely to make progress in achieving the SGD 6 objectives. Therefore, among countries that share water resources, it should be a priority to make progress in SGD Indicator 6.5.2 to develop operational arrangements for water cooperation.


There are several socioeconomic and policy barriers to improving water quality, but also some potential solutions to these challenges:

Barriers:

• Declining water quality in countries with rapidly developing economies.

• Difficulties in reducing water pollution in watersheds that cross national boundaries.

Solutions:

• Use economic instruments to promote pollution abatement across all economic sectors.


• Recognise sampling frequency and site density and prepare water quality monitoring matrix as a greater priority than the number of water quality parameters to be measured,

• Participate in inter-laboratory quality control programmes to promote generation of water quality monitoring data of high quality,

• Include measurements of surface water flows or discharge as part of the monitoring programmes.

• Invest in innovative methods and techniques for low-cost water quality monitoring.

• Address policy and institutional constraints to support and promote water quality monitoring programmes and track their progress.

Nations that are highly motivated to meet the objectives of SGD 6 can act as champions for the programme and can be a valuable resource for promoting water quality monitoring programmes in other countries with which they have regional, political or linguistic

References

Atreya K, Sitaula BK, Johnson FH, Bajracharya RM (2011) Continuing issues in the limitations of pesticide use in developing countries. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24:49-62.

Basu A, Saha D, Saha R, Ghosh T, Saha B (2014) A review on sources, toxicity and remediation technologies for removing arsenifrom drinking water. Research in Chemical Intermediation 40:447-485.

Belmont MA, Cantellano E, Ramirez-Mendoza N (2017) Growing ornamental flowers and fish in Indigenous communities in Mexico: An incentive model for pollution abatement using constructed wetlands, In: Nagabhatla N, Metcalfe CD (eds.), Multifunctional Wetlands: Pollution Abatement and Other Ecological Services from Natural and Constructed Wetlands, Springer, In Press.

Biswas AK, Farzanegan MR, Thum M (2012) Pollution, shadow economy and corruption: Theory and evidence. Ecological Economics 75:114-125.

Biswas AK (2008) Integrated water resource management: Is it working? Water Resources Development 24:5-22.

Blackman A, Lahiri B, Rivera Planter M, Piña CM (2010) Voluntary environmental regulation in developing countries: Mexico’s Clean Industry Program. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 60:182-192.

Brissaud F (2010) Technologies for water regeneration and integrated management of water resources. In: Sabater S, Barceló D (eds.), Water Scarcity in the Mediterranean: Perspectives under Global Change, Springer, Heidelberg, Germany.

Burgara-Montero O, Ponce-Ortega JM, Serna-Gonzalez, El-Halwagi MM (2012) Optimal design of distributed treatment systems for the effluents discharged to the rivers. Clean Technology and Environmental Policy 14:925-942.

Clement M, Meunie A (2010) Is inequality harmful for the environment? An empirical analysis applied to developing and transition countries. Review of Social Economy LXVIII:223-232.

Cole MA, Elliot RJR, Zhang J (2010) Growth, foreign direct investment, and the environment: Evidence from Chinese cities. Journal of Regional Science 51:121-135.

Cuppens A, Smets I, Wyseure G (2013) Identifying sustainable rehabilitation strategies for urban wastewater systems: A retrospective and interdisciplinary approach. A case study of Coronel Oviedo, Paraguay. Journal of Environmental Management 114:423-432.

ties. These countries could also be centers for the regional monitoring networks that have been proposed as a solution for improving the quality and quantity of monitoring data (UNEP, 2016b). The resources of UN-Water and associated agencies should be directed to supporting these mentoring activities.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to Vivian González Jiménez of Dirección de Agua, Costa Rica for her help in compiling information about the water quality monitoring programme in Costa Rica. Thanks also to Debbie Chapman of the CDC in Ireland for her useful comments about progress on the needs assessment for capacity building for SGD 6. Dr. Vladimir Smakhtin provided editorial comments to the report. We are also grateful to the anonymous external reviewer for the useful and insightful comments that helped to improve the manuscript. This research is supported by the funds received by UNU-INWEH through long-term agreement with Global Affairs Canada.


Day JW, Rybczyk JM, Cardoch L, Conner W, Delgado-Sanchez P, Pratt R, Westphal A (1999) A review of recent studies of the ecological and economical aspects of the application of secondarily treated municipal effluent to wetlands in Southern Louisiana. In: Rozas L, Nyman J, Proffitt C, Rabalais N, Turner R (eds.) Recent Research in Coastal Louisiana, Louisiana Sea Grant College Program, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. Pp. 155-166.

Dinda S (2004) Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: A survey. Ecological Economics 49:431-455.

De Groot HLF, Withagen CA, Minliang Z (2004) Dynamics of China’s regional development and pollution: An investigation into the environmental Kuznets curve. Environmental Development and Economics 9:507-537.

Dellink R, Brouwer R, Linderhof V, Stone K (2011) Bio-economic modeling of water quality imprvements using a dynamic applied general equilibrium approach. Ecological Economics 71:63-79.

Ederington J, Levinson A, Minier J (2005) Footloose and pollution-free. Reviews in Economic Status 87:92-99.

Elnaboulsi JC (2011) An efficient pollution control instrument: The case of urban wastewater pollution. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 16:343-358.

European Commission (2016) Introduction to the new EU Water Framework Directive. Water Information System for Europe, last updated July 8, 2016.http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/info/intro_en.htm

Garibay-Rodriguez J, Rico-Ramirez V, Ponce-Ortega JM (2017) Optimal water management in macroscopic systems under economic penalty scenarios. AIChE Journal 63:3419-3430. GemStat (2017) Global Water Quality Information System, Information available at: http://www.waterandchange.org/en/gemstatdatabase/http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/254999/1/9789241512190-eng.pdf?ua=1

GLAAS (2017) Financing universal water, sanitation and hygiene under the Sustainable Development Goals, UN-Water Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking Water.http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/254999/1/9789241512190-eng.pdf?ua=1

Gonzalez de Asis M, Ljung P, O’Leary D, Butterworth J. (2009) Improving Transparency, Integrity, and Accountability in Water Supply and Sanitation. Action, Learning, Experiences, World Bank Group, https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-7892-2

Grangier C, Qadir M, Singh M (2012) Health implications for children in wastewater-irrigated peri-urban Aleppo, Syria. Water Quality Exposure and Health 4: 187-195.

Grigg NS (2008) Integrated water resource management: Balancing views and improving practice. Water International 33:279-292.

Gregoire C, Elsaesser D, Huguenot D, Lange J, Lebeau T, Merli A, Mose R, Passeport E, Payraudeau S, Schutz T, Schulz R, Tapia-Padilla G, Tournebize J, Trevisan M, Wanko A (2009) Mitigation of agricultural nonpoint-source pesticide pollution in artificial wetland ecosystems, Environmental Chemistry Letters 7: 205-231.

Gyawali S, Techato K, Yuangyai C, Musikavong C (2013) Assessment of relationship between land uses of riparian zone and water quality of river for sustainable development of river basin, A case study of U-Tapao river basin, Thailand. Procedia Environmental Sciences 17:291-297.

Hayashi A, Akimoto K, Tomoda T, Kii M (2013) Global evaluation of the effects of agriculture and water management adaptations on the water-stressed population. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 18:591-618.

Hoque A, Clarke A (2013) Greening of industries in Bangladesh: Pollution prevention practices. Journal of Cleaner Production 51:47-56.

IWA (2006) Sanitation 21: Simple Approaches to Complex Sanitation – A Draft Framework for Analysis, International Water Association, London, U.K., 39 p.

IW:Science (2012) River Basins: A global analysis of river basins science and transboundary management. GEF IW:Science Project, United Nations University – Institute for Water, Environment and Health and UNEP, 24 p.

Jung HC, Hamski J, Durand M (2010) Characterization of complex fluvial systems using remote sensing of spatial and temporal water level variations in the Amazon, Congo and Brahmaputra Rivers. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 35:294-304.

Kivaisi AK (2001) The potential for constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment and reuse in developing countries: A review. Ecological Engineering 16:545-560.


Kreamer DKW, Usher BW (2010) Sub-Saharan African ground water protection – Building on international experience. Groundwater 48:257-268.

Lam S, Nguyen-Viet H, Tuyet-Hanh TT, Nguyen-Mai H, Harper S (2015) Evidence for public health risks of wastewater and excreta management practices in Southeast Asia: A scoping review. International Journal of Research in Public Health 12:12863-12855.

Legleiter CJ, Overstreet BT (2014) Retrieving river attributes from remotely sensed data: An experimental evaluation based on field spectroscopy at the outdoor stream lab. River Research and Applications 30:671-684.

Lieb CM (2004) The environmental Kuznets curve and flow vs stock pollution: The neglect of future damages. Environmental and Resource Economics 29:483-586.

MINAE (2013) Plan Nacional de Monitoreo de Calidad de los Cuerpos de Agua Superficiales, Ministerio de Ambiente y Energia – Dirección de Agua, Government of Costa Rica; Available at: http://www.da.go.cr/calidad/

Massoud MA, Tareen J, Tarhini A, Nasr JA, Jurdi M (2010) Effectiveness of wastewater management in rural areas of developing countries: A case of Al-Chouf Caza in Lebanon. Environmental Monitorng and Assessment 161:61-69.

Massoud MA, Tarhini A, Nasr JA (2009) Decentralized approaches to wastewater treatment and management: Applicability in developing countries. Journal of Environmental Management 90:652-659.

Mateo-Sagasta J., Marjani Zadeh S., Lamizana B, Drechsel P (2014). Water quality: The chance to avert a global crisis. In: van der Bliek J, McCornick P, Clarke J (eds). On target for people and planet. Setting and Achieving Water–related Sustainable Development Goals, pp 39-41, International Water Management Institute, Sri Lanka.

Mateo-Sagasta J, Marjani Zadeh S, Turral H (2017) Water quality from agriculture: a global review. Executive summary. CGIAR research program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Mateo-Sagasta J, Tare V (2016) Ganga water quality: dirty past, promising future? In: Bharati L, Sharma B, Smakhtin V (eds) The Ganges River Basin: Status and Challenges in Water, Environment and Livelihoods. Earthscan Series on Major River Basins of the World, Routledge, 362 p.

Mihelcic JR, Fry LM, Shaw R (2011) Global potential of phosphorus recovery from human urine and feces. Chemosphere 84:832-839.

Murphy HM, McBean EA, Farabakhsh K (2009) Appropriate technology – a comprehensive approach for water and sanitation in the developing world. Technology in Society 31:158-167.

Nansubuga I, Banadda N, Verstrate W, Rabaey K (2016) A review of sustainable sanitation systems in Africa. Reviews on Environmental Science and Biotechnology 15:465-478.

Nesshöver C, Assmuth T, Irvine KN, Rusch GM, Whalen KA, Delbaere B, Haase D, Jones-Walters L, Keune H, Kovacs E, Krauze K, Kulvik M, Rey F, van Dijk J, Vistad OI, Wilkinson ME, Wittmer H (2017) The science, policy and practice of nature-based solutions: An interdisciplinary perspective. Science of the Total Environment 579: 1215–1227.

Novotny V, Wang X, Englande Jr AJ, Bedoya D, Promakasikorn L, Tirado R (2010) Comparative assessment of pollution by the use of industrial agricultural fertilizers in four rapidly developing Asian countries. Environmental Development and Sustainability 12:491-501.

NWSC (2011) Enhancing Financial Sustainability and Infrastructure Growth (2012-2015), Corporate Plan of the National Water and Sewerage Corporation of Uganda, 51 p.

Ohliger A, Schulz R (2010) Water body and riparian buffer strip characteristics in a vineyard area to support aquatic pesticide exposure assessment. Science of the Total Environment 48:5405-5413.

Oliveira SC, Von Sperling M (2008) Reliability analysis of wastewater treatment plants. Water Research 42:1182-1194.

Otoo, M, Drechsel P (2017). Resource Recovery from Waste: Business Models for Energy, Nutrient and Water Reuse. Earthscan-IWMI, in press.

Özerol G, Bressers H, Coenen F (2012) Irrigated agriculture and environmental sustainability: An alignment perspective. Environmental Science and Policy 23:57-67.

Pandey HK, Duggal SK, Jamatia A (2016) Fluoride contamination of groundwater and it’s hydrological evolution in District Sonbhadra (U.P.) India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science India, Section A: Physical Science 86:81-93.


Paudel KP, Zapata H, Susanto D (2005) An empirical test of environmental Kuznets curve for water pollution. Environmental and Resource Economics 31:325-348.

Preker AS, Adeyi OO, Lapetra MG, Simon D-C, Keuffel E (2016) Health care expenditures associated with pollution: Exploratory methods and findings. Annals of Global Health 82, 14 p.

Qadir M, Mwachiro J (2017) Towards a World Free of Untreated Wastewater. UNU-INWEH Policy Brief, Issue 2. United Nations University - Institute for Water, Environment and Health. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Available at: http://inweh.unu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Policy-Brief_Issue02.pdf

Rudolph DL, Devin JF, Bekeris L (2015) Challenges and a strategy for agricultural BMP monitoring and remediation of nitrate contamination in unconsolidated aquifers. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation 35:97-109.

SACEP (2014). Nutrient loading and eutrophication of coastal waters of the South Asian Seas – A scoping study. South Asia Co-operative Environment Program, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 44 p. Available at: http://www.sacep.org/pdf/Scoping_study_on_Nutrient_loading_in_SAS_Region.pdf

Sapkota P, Bastola U (2017) Foreign direct investment, income, and environmental pollution in developing countries: Panel data analysis of Latin America. Energy Economics 64:206-212.

Sato T, Qadir M, Yamamoto S, Endo T, Zahoor A (2013) Global, regional, and country level need for data on wastewater generation, treatment, and reuse. Agricultural Water Management 130: 1-13.

Scholtz M, ed. (2015) Wetlands for Water Pollution Control, 2nd edition. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 556 p.

Schulz C, Ioris A, Martin-Ortega J, Glenk K (2015) Prospects for payments for ecosystem services in the Brazilian Pantanal: A scenario analysis. Journal of Environment and Development 24:26-53.

Sigman H (2002) International spillovers and water quality in rivers: Do countries free ride? American Economics Review 92:1152-1159.

Sigua GC, Pascale Palbares JC, Kich JD, Mulinari MR, Mattei RM, Klein JB, Muller S, Plieske G (2010) Microbiological quality assessment of watershed associated with animal-based agriculture in Santa Catarina, Brazil. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 210:307-316.

Stehle M, Schulz R (2015) Agricultural insecticides threaten surface waters at the global scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112:5750–5755.

Tang J (2015) Testing the pollution haven effect: Does the type of FDI matter? Environmental Resource Economics 60:549-578.

Teodosiu C, Robu B, Cojocariu C, Barjoveanu G (2015) Environmental impact and risk quantification based on selected water quality indicators. Natural Hazards 75:S89-S105.

Thebo AL, Drechsel P, Lambin EF, Nelson KL (2017) A global, spatially-explicit assessment of irrigated croplands influenced by urban wastewater flows. Environmental Research Letters 12:074008, 12 p.Thorslund J, Jarsjö J, Destouni G (2017) Wetlands as large-scale nature-based solutions: status and future challenges for research and management. Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 19, EGU2017-13165 2017, European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2017, Copyright to authors, CC Attribution 3.0 License.

UNEP (2016a) Draft work plan (2016-17) of the Global Environment Monitoring System, Water, Programme, UNEP GEMS/Water, May 2, 2016. Available at: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/11224/GEMSWater_Project_Plan_2016_2017_DRAFT.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

UNEP (2016b) A snapshot of the world’s water quality: Towards a global assessment, United Nations Environment Programme. Available at: https://uneplive.unep.org/media/docs/assessments/unep_wwqa_report_web.pdf

UNESCO (2006) World Water Day Report. United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Available at: www.unesco.org/water/wwap

UN-Water (2012) Status Report on The Application of Integrated Approaches to Water ResourceManagement.http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/pdf/un_water_status_report_2012.pdf)


UN-Water (2015) Metadata on suggested indicators for global monitoring of the sustainable development Goal 6 on water and sanitation. Compiled by UN-Water for the Interagency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (IAEG-SDGs), Version 1, December 6, 2015. Available at:http://www.unwater.org/publications/monitoring-water-sanitation-2030-agenda-sustainable-development-executive-briefing-2/

UN-Water (2016a) Integrated monitoring guide for SDG 6 targets and global indicators, Version July 19, 2016. http://www.unwater.org/app/uploads/2017/03/SDG-6-targets-and-global-indicators_2016-07-19.pdf

UN-Water (2016b) Water and sanitation interlinkages across the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; Geneva, 47 p.

UN-Water (2017a) Step-by-step monitoring methodology for SDG indicator 6.3.2 on ambient water quality, Chapter 4, Integrated Monitoring Guide for SDG 6, Revision January 18, 2017. Available at: http://www.unwater.org/publications/step-step-methodology-monitoring-water-quality-6-3-2/

UN-Water (2017b) Wastewater, The untapped resource, The United Nations World Water Development Report 2017. Available at: www.unesco.org/water/wwap.

Van Grieken ME, Thomas CR, Roebeling PC, Thorburn PJ (2013) Intwegrating economic drivers of social change into agricultural water quality improvement strategies. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 180:166-175.

Verbyla ME, Oakley SM, Mihelcic JR (2013) Wastewater infrastructure for small cities in an urbanizing world: Integrating protection of human health and the environment with resource recovery and food security. Environmental Science and Technology 47:3598-3605.

Verstraete W, de Caveye P, Diamantis V (2009) Maximum use of resources present in domestic “used water”. Bioresource Technology 100:5537-5545.

Wang Q, Yang Z (2016) Industrial water pollution, water environment treatment, and health risks in China. Environmental Pollution 218:358-365.

Water Integrity Network (2016) Water Integrity Global Outlook 2016 www.waterintegritynetwork.net/wigo/

White JR, Gardner LM, Sees M, Corstanje R (2008) The short-term effects of prescribed burning on biomass removal and the release of nitrogen and phosphorus in a treatment wetland. Journal of Environmental Quality 37:2386-2391.

WHO and UNICEF (2015) Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water, 2015 Update. Available through:http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Progress_on_Sanitation_and_Drinking_Water_2015_Update_pdf., Accessed July, 2017.

Winpenny J, Trémolet S, Cardone R, Kolker J, Kingdom B, Mountford L (2016) Aid Flows to the Water Sector: Overview and Recommendations. The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Wong YL, Lewis L (2013) The disappearing Environmental Kuznets Curve: A study of water quality in the lower Mekong basin (LMB). Journal of Environmental Management 131:415-425.

World Bank Group (2017). Country classifications by income level 2017-2018. https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/new-country-classifications-income-level-2017-2018

Zheng D, Shi M (2017) Multiple environmental policies and pollution haven hypothesis: Evidence from China’s polluting industries. Journal of Cleaner Production 141:295-304.

© United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH)204 - 175 Longwood Road South, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8P 0A1

Tel: +905 667-5511 Fax: +905 667 5510

Documents

UNU-INWEH REPORT SERIES 02 - UN Think Tank on Water · Water Quality: Towards a Global Assessment”, there was an evaluation of the spatial and temporal coverage of water quality