Moving Beyond SDG 6: Recognizing the Plurality of ‘WaterS’ (BRIDGES Cologne Policy Insights #4)

On 20 January 2026, United Nations researchers released a flagship report which declares that the world has now moved beyond a water crisis and into a critical state of “global water bankruptcy.” Coincidentally, on 11 February 2026, the interdisciplinary journal Water International published a commentary proposing “new approaches to managing water and addressing the global water crisis.”

The commentary, co-authored by University of Cologne’s Professor Franz Krause, Co-Director of MESH and BRIDGES Cologne, argues that our current global framework, Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6, is failing precisely because it treats water as a singular, technical commodity rather than a multifaceted social reality.

According to the authors, as we approach the 2030 deadline and begin discussions on what is to follow, the data is sobering: billions of people remain underserved in terms of drinking water and sanitation, and progress on water quality and ecosystem protection has stagnated. The authors suggest that in order to address this, we need a paradigm shift: we must stop talking about “water” (H₂O) in the singular and start talking about “waterS” in the plural.

From Infrastructure to “WaterS”

As the authors explain, the deliberate use of the term “waterS” (with a capital S) highlights that water is a “hydrosocial” phenomenon. It is the glue that holds social relations, spiritual practices and local economies together. By acknowledging the plurality of water, we move away from seeing it as a mere object of social relations and start seeing it as a relational element.

When large-scale infrastructure projects—like the massive “Mission Bhagiratha” in India—prioritize standardized delivery of drinking water to millions of people over customary “riverhood” (a term describing the interconnected governance and cultural practices tied to rivers and water use), they risk dismantling the very social fabric that has sustained these regions for centuries.

Overall, the commentary argues for treating waterS as multiple, while seriously considering contextual differences in the design and execution of water policies around the world. In this regard, the authors state:

The post-2030 agenda must acknowledge that the success of global water initiatives hinges on their local implementation and recognition of the diversity of local prerequisites and understandings. Policies and processes should recognize and integrate local approaches and stakeholders, while remaining sensitive to power dynamics; [and remembering that] local groups and individual needs are heterogeneous.

The Trap of the “Techno-Fix”

The prevailing “modern water” perspective—rooted in 19th-century European engineering—views water as a uniform, measurable substance to be managed through pipes, pumps and treatment plants. While these are necessary, the commentary warns that a purely technical approach often ignores how local communities actually interact with their environment.

In Antofagasta, Chile, for example, the city has transitioned to desalinated seawater so that natural freshwater can be diverted to mining operations. While the “technical” quality of the water remains high, local residents still prefer natural mountain springs, viewing the change not just as a shift in chemistry, but as a loss of connection to their landscape. Similarly, in peri-urban India, households navigate a complex web of multiple sources for different kinds of “waterS”—drinking water; ‘household’ water for washing, cleaning, and sanitation; and water for other purposes. This plethora of sources provide multiple waterS “characterized by different levels of availability, quality, and cost.” When policy ignores these distinctions in favour of a “one-size-fits-all” pipeline, it often creates new dependencies and erases traditional management systems.

Policy Recommendations for a Post-2030 Agenda

To avoid the pitfalls of “green sacrifice zones” and “water blindness,” the authors propose several critical policy shifts for national governments and international agencies. They include:

1. Embrace Plurality in Governance: Policies must move beyond “modern water” ontologies. This means recognizing and integrating Indigenous and local knowledge systems into formal water management. Governance frameworks should allow for local autonomy to define priorities based on distinct human-nature relationships, including the cultural and spiritual dimensions of waterS.
2. Move Beyond Statistics: Standardized reporting often hides inequalities. Policy should focus on “intra-household differentiation” and local realities. For instance, achieving 100 litres per person is a hollow victory if the source erodes a community’s spiritual or ecological heritage.
3. Address Power Asymmetries: Water is inherently political. Interventions must be sensitive to power dynamics—not just between the state and its citizens, but also within local communities where customary logics may also harbour their own inequalities. Throughout the policy cycle for water, it would be imperative to integrate perspectives and priorities from stakeholders who are often marginalised, particularly women, youth, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.
4. Adopt a Relational Approach to Justice: Water justice is not just about the fair distribution of H₂O. It is also about the recognition of different “water realities.” Future policies should safeguard “riverscapes” and “waterscapes” as living entities, protecting the livelihoods and cultural practices that depend on them.
5. Rights-based Approach: Water governance should adopt a rights-based approach that combines both formal legal frameworks and traditional customary systems of water management. This would provide robust legal systems to address disputes and design independent monitoring mechanisms to ensure compliance.
6. Foster Innovative Cooperation: Bridging local needs with transboundary priorities requires a shift away from uniform assessments. We need flexible governance models that allow for cooperation across scales without imposing rigid, external standards. In the authors’ words, “…bridging local needs with transboundary and global priorities is essential for fostering innovative cooperation, even if it challenges standardized reporting requirements.”

Conclusion

The lesson for policymakers is clear: water is never just a resource; it is a relationship. When designing and implementing water schemes, we must look beyond the pipes. As the authors put it, “Instead of imposing uniform assessments, we argue for governance frameworks that allow local autonomy to define priorities based on distinct human–nature relationships, ecosystems, and values that underpin water availability and needs.” If we continue to ignore the social and cultural dimension of water access and infrastructure, we risk meeting technical targets while failing the very people those targets were meant to serve. The transition to a sustainable future requires us to respect the multiplicity of the “waterS” that sustain us all.

NOTE: This policy insights piece was written by Dr Nsah Mala, Hub Coordinator for BRIDGES Cologne.