Every year, as September rolls around, a stark reality confronts us: billions still lack access to clean water and sanitation, a basic human right that should be universally guaranteed. While world leaders gather at the United Nations General Assembly to discuss global progress, the clock is ticking toward 2030, and Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6)—ensuring clean water and sanitation for all—remains alarmingly off-track. But here’s where it gets controversial: despite a sprawling network of institutions dedicated to this goal, coherence and coordination are lacking, leaving millions in peril. Let’s dive into why this matters and what needs to change.
In 2025, the 80th UN General Assembly convened under the theme “Better Together: 80 Years and More for Peace, Development, and Human Rights.” This high-level gathering emphasized renewed commitment to multilateralism, with a spotlight on accelerating the SDGs. Among the eight major meetings, a special discussion on Myanmar’s Rohingya crisis, initiated by Bangladesh’s Chief Adviser, underscored the urgency of global solidarity. On September 22, the UN’s annual SDG Moment celebrated grassroots initiatives driving change across sectors, from renewable energy to gender equality. Yet, amidst these inspiring efforts, SDG 6 stands as a glaring exception—a goal where progress is not just slow but critically stalled.
Water is life, yet the dream of universal access to safe water and sanitation remains distant. By 2030, at current rates, 1.6 billion people will still lack safe drinking water, and 2.8 billion will live without proper sanitation. These aren’t just numbers; they represent families forced to drink contaminated water, children at risk of preventable diseases, and communities trapped in cycles of poverty and indignity. The crisis is undeniable, but the question remains: how effectively are global institutions responding?
Behind SDG 6 lies a complex web of agencies and platforms—an “institutional crowd” tasked with monitoring, guiding, and inspiring action. Within the UN system, water monitoring has evolved into a sophisticated yet fragmented structure. The WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) has long tracked global access to drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene, forming the backbone for targets 6.1 and 6.2. Complementing it is UN-Water’s GLAAS (Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water), managed by WHO, which focuses on financing, capacity, and governance—the systems that ensure sustainability. Meanwhile, GEMI (Integrated Monitoring of Water and Sanitation-Related SDG Targets), launched in 2014, addresses gaps in targets 6.3 to 6.6, covering water quality, wastewater treatment, ecosystem health, and efficient water use. Together, these mechanisms form the core of SDG 6 monitoring, integrating data across the water cycle to guide policymakers.
But here’s the part most people miss: coordination among these guardians of SDG 6 is far from seamless. While JMP and GLAAS benefit from decades of experience, GEMI is still maturing, and coherence across agencies remains a challenge. A 2017 workshop in The Hague revealed a critical insight: civil society organizations (CSOs) often possess rich, ground-level data on water access and quality, yet this information rarely makes it into official UN monitoring. Despite their proximity to reality, CSOs remain “consultative participants” rather than true data partners. The result? A technically robust system that risks missing the human stories and struggles behind the numbers.
Efforts to simplify this institutional maze have emerged, but progress has been slow. A group of European nations once proposed a UN intergovernmental body on water, akin to the climate COPs, where countries could review progress, share lessons, and agree on collective actions. The idea was to create a single platform for accountability and reduce fragmentation. However, political complexities stalled its realization. Similarly, the UN-World Bank High-Level Panel on Water, co-chaired by world leaders in 2016, produced valuable recommendations but dissolved after its term. Recognizing this leadership vacuum, the UN Secretary-General appointed Indonesia’s former foreign minister, Retno Marsudi, as the first-ever Special Envoy on Water in 2024—a move signaling renewed urgency to streamline advocacy and coordination.
For countries like Bangladesh, this institutional complexity isn’t theoretical; it directly impacts national progress. Bangladesh has made remarkable strides, with 98% of its population now having at least basic water services. Yet, only 59% have safely managed drinking water, and 37% have safely managed sanitation. Climate threats, from rising seas to arsenic contamination, add further strain. For such nations, global mechanisms like JMP, GLAAS, and GEMI aren’t distant bureaucracies—they’re vital partners offering data, frameworks, and advocacy platforms. But to truly serve frontline countries, these systems must function as a single, responsive ecosystem, not isolated silos.
Water and sanitation are not just technical issues; they are deeply human concerns. They determine whether a child can attend school safely, whether a farmer can irrigate sustainably, or whether a mother can trust the water she gives her child. When institutional crowding leads to duplication, slow response, or diluted accountability, it’s these human lives that pay the price. The challenge, therefore, isn’t to dismantle existing mechanisms but to harmonize them—ensuring data translates into action, action into progress, and progress reaches the most vulnerable.
As the world gathered for the 80th UNGA, the message was clear: we have the tools, institutions, and frameworks—what we need now is coherence, urgency, and shared purpose. The guardians of SDG 6 must rise above bureaucratic fragmentation to form a united front for humanity’s most basic right—clean water and dignified sanitation. For nations like Bangladesh, and for billions worldwide, the promise of the 2030 Agenda depends on it.
Controversial Question for You: Should global water governance be centralized under a single body, or is the current decentralized approach more effective? Share your thoughts in the comments—let’s spark a conversation that could shape the future of SDG 6.
Mohammad Zobair Hasan is Deputy Executive Director of the Development Organization of the Rural Poor (DORP).
