Search

At a rhetorical level, the SDGs provide a unified global agenda, and their targets and indicators are believed to drive action for social and environmental transformation. However, what if the SDGs (and their specific goals and indicators) are more of a problem than a solution? What if they create the illusion of action through a depoliticised and technical approach that fails to address fundamental dilemmas of politics and power? What if this illusion continues to reproduce poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation? This paper addresses these questions through a focus on SDG 6.5.1 – the implementation of integrated water resources management (IWRM), measured on a 0-100 scale through a composite indicator. The paper presents an empirical analysis of SDG 6.5.1 reporting in Colombia, Ethiopia, India, Malaysia, and the UK, drawing on research from the Water Security and Sustainable Development Hub.1 An evidence review and series of expert interviews are used to interrogate the local politics of IWRM measurement, specifically three dilemmas of global composite indicator construction: (1) reductive quantification of normative and contested processes; (2) weak analysis of actually existing institutional capability, politics, and power; and (3) distracting performativity dynamics in reporting. The paper concludes that SDG 6.5.1 is an example of a 'fantasy artefact', and that in all countries in this study, IWRM institutions are failing to address fundamental and 'wicked' problems in water resources management. We find little evidence that these numbers, or the survey that gives rise to them, drive meaningful reflection on the aims or outcomes of IWRM. Instead, they tend to hide the actually-existing political and institutional dynamics that sit behind the complexity of the global water crisis.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a valuable tool not only for analyzing the environmental impact of a product but also for assisting in early-stage product development before incurring scaling-up costs. When validating a new process or project, it may be constrained to align with existing regulations or standards. Therefore, combining LCA with other applicable standards is essential to demonstrate the project's feasibility. In this regard, the water quality index (WQI) and Water Exploitation Index (WEI) provide additional information that reflects the overall water quality at a specific location and time. The objective of this study is to utilize the LCA framework in conjunction with the Malaysia WQI and WEI to protect the water quantity and water quality of the river. A negative change in the WQI score indicates that the current effluent from the process is degrading the river's classification, rendering it undesirable and necessitating a reduction in concentration. The findings demonstrate that the method for determining effluent requirements for a water treatment system is straightforward and replicable. Such an approach could be employed, for example, in an environmental impact analysis of a project to verify its viability.

The challenge of collaborative water governance often lies in the complexity of the networks involved in its processes, particularly in understanding the location of power and how the reputational power can be executed for policy decisions. A case study of the state of Johor, Malaysia, was done with the goal of figuring out a method for mapping out reputational powers in the network of actors involved in the water governance of the state. To achieve this goal, this study deconstructs the different facets of the state’s water governance system by outlining the spatial, operational, and legal boundaries of various agencies. The fundamental issues identified through this step are the complexity that leads to fragmented water governance. A research framework is thus proposed, derived from a qualitative approach whereby through in-depth interviews, respondents are asked to rank the water-related agencies based on their perceived influence. These rankings derived from qualitative interviews are given weights and subsequently measured using parameters such as density and in-degree centrality to provide quantitative evidence of the reputational powers held by actors in the water governance network. The study supports the future use of the reputational power research framework to achieve collaborative water governance solutions. HIGHLIGHTS The deconstruction of the different facets of the state of Johor's water governance system.; The overlaps and fragmentation of power in the water governance network as fundamental issues.; Contribution to collaborative interactions in a water governance system.; The development of reputational power research framework based on social network analysis.; Measuring power from both qualitative and quantitative angles.;