Research, part of a special feature on The Next Wave in Water Governance

INTRODUCTION

As the climate crisis intensifies, water managers, scholars, advocates, and policymakers are growing increasingly concerned with the interconnections between water and climate (Arnell 1999, Allan et al. 2020, Yasin et al. 2020, Cheng et al. 2022). Water and climate, however, have long been separated in international problem framing and agenda-setting forums. “Water” does not appear in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Paris Agreement, the international treaty and central normative framework for global climate action (UNFCCC 2015). Until the COP26 Water Pavilion in 2021, water was absent from the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP), the annual global climate change summit (Sovacool and Linnér 2016).

The inaugural Water Pavilion at COP26 in 2021 provided the first formal venue to discuss water at a COP and marked a major milestone in integrating problem framings of water and climate issues (Matthews 2022). Led by 32 partner non-profits, intergovernmental organizations, private actors, and governments, the Water Pavilion aimed to frame water issues as climate issues and forge collaboration on climate mitigation and adaptation in the water sector (Matthews 2023). The Water Pavilion organizers curated event and speaker submissions from various water sector actors into thematic days including finance, energy, nature, civil society and youth, climate-resilient water and sanitation, adaptation and resilience, food and agriculture, disaster risk reduction, cities and infrastructure, and cooperation. In the years since, the Water Pavilion has solidified into a mainstay of global agenda setting on the climate-water nexus (Water Pavilion 2023).

The Water Pavilion offers a rare window into the current state of a multi-decade process of international actors first siloing and then integrating their work on water and climate challenges (Janetschek et al. 2020). United Nations (UN) bodies, international finance institutions, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have historically framed water access and management problems as local issues of sustainable development and the human right to water. This framing was laid out in the 1977 Mar del Plata UN water conference and deepened in the 1992 Dublin Principles, the 2000 Millennium Development Goals, and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; Woodhouse and Muller 2017, Grafton et al. 2023, de Wit et al. 2024). Adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015, the SDGs established a global vision to end poverty, promote human development, and protect the planet (UN General Assembly 2015). Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG6) is devoted to water and aims to “ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all” (UN General Assembly 2015:14). Its eight targets and corresponding indicators focus on expanding access to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) as a basic need and management of watersheds and freshwater ecosystems (Appendix 1, Table A1.1; de Wit et al. 2024).

In contrast, global negotiations on the climate crisis fall under the UNFCCC and have focused on raising the ambition of national decarbonization commitments and catalyzing a transition to low-emission energy sources, starting from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and following into the 2015 Paris Agreement (Schipper 2006, Janetschek et al. 2020). Policy and institutional links between water and climate expanded in the late 2000s as climate change adaptation became a higher global priority (Klein et al. 2005, Schipper 2006). At COP15 in 2009, UN-Water, an interagency coordination body, made its first intervention by releasing a statement on the connection between water challenges and climate change adaptation (Baumgartner and Pahl-Wostl 2013). Over a decade later, water is being mainstreamed into climate change funding, policy, and research and vice-versa (Graham et al. 2018, UN-Water 2019, 2024, Timboe et al. 2020, Ingemarsson et al. 2022). The launch of the Water Pavilion at COP26 marked a key milestone in this process and set the stage for COP negotiators to include water in the negotiating agenda and outcome decision for the first time at COP27 in 2022 (UNFCCC 2022). At COP27, water was suddenly important (de Melo et al. 2023), so much so that it was termed the Water COP or Blue COP (McSweeney 2022). A few months later, organizers of the UN 2023 Water Conference featured climate change as a key pillar of the event’s programming and output text (Ovink et al. 2023, Matthews 2023, Grafton et al. 2023, IISD 2023) However, only 23% of the nearly 700 commitments submitted by governments, non-profits, companies, and other actors to the conference’s UN Water Action Agenda considered climate interconnections (UN 2022, Iceland and Black 2023). Still, Matthews (2023) argued that “climate policy is inundating the SDGs’ in material ways: water policy, practice, and funding are shifting away from SDG6 to align water as a critical delivery mechanism” [for the Paris Agreement] (Matthews 2023:1).

Climate change is indeed a major force of change in the water sector (Caretta et al. 2022). However, a shift away from SDG6 and toward the Paris Agreement as the water sector’s policy north star, as postulated by Matthews (2023), would be consequential. Such a reorientation would signify a remarkable change in the water sector’s core motivation and problem definition, from a focus on universal WASH access and water resource sustainability to slashing emissions and reducing vulnerability to climate extremes. The water problem definition matters because it ultimately shapes where water funding flows, how policy is constructed, and who is included in the process (Bardwell 1991, Dennis and Brondizio 2020).

We look back to the inaugural COP26 Water Pavilion where, in a historic first, water sector actors came together to articulate the problem space of water for climate action. We empirically evaluate how established water sector priorities under SDG6 and climate priorities under the Paris Agreement are incorporated in this early articulation of the water for climate problem space. We analyze which actors are driving this process of change and identify key tensions that are emerging in this new climate-water problem framing. Our broader goal is to characterize how water challenges are framed within climate change policy and institutional settings and provide water sector actors with tools to develop a synergistic integration of water and climate work as coupled and equally urgent priorities.

METHODS

COP26 Water Pavilion as a study site

Conference of the Parties Pavilions offer a venue in the annual climate summit for governmental, NGO, business, and other actors to share knowledge and accomplishments, build legitimacy and institutional capacity, and advocate for certain solutions to and framings of the climate crisis (see Fig. 1; Hjerpe and Linnér 2010, Schroeder and Lovell 2012, Kuyper et al. 2018). These Pavilions are increasingly organized by sectors, including water, food, energy, and land (Chan et al. 2021, Obergassel et al. 2022). They offer the premier site globally for sectoral leaders concerned with climate change issues to converge and consolidate the sector’s framing of their challenges under climate change (Allan 2020, Chan et al. 2022, Obergassel et al. 2022). The launch of the Water Pavilion exemplifies the expanding and shifting purpose of COP summits into a key meeting point for sectors, including water, and actors beyond national governments (Allan 2019).

Methodology

We conducted a mixed methods content analysis of the Water Pavilion’s 76 recorded sessions to identify trends in how speakers related their statements to the Paris Agreement and SDG6 and integrated water and climate issues more broadly (Krippendorff 2013, Metag 2016). We developed our codebook by synthesizing the terminology of SDG6 and the Paris Agreement, validated against the COP26 Water Pavilion session titles and abstracts to capture emerging themes (see Tables 1 and 2). We organized the codebook into the overarching themes of what (problems), how (solutions), who (demographics), and where (geography and scale; see Appendix1, Table A1.2). In Dedoose, we manually applied these codes to delineate and categorize ideas shared by the speakers. To ensure consistency and inter-coder reliability, we conducted a group training and worked in randomly assigned coding pairs. We then conducted a qualitative content analysis of framings to identify themes and patterns in how speakers framed issues and solutions. We furthermore compared how dominant and contrasting framings compared to the framework and language of the Paris Agreement and SDG6. Guided by Entman (1993), we selected a framing analysis because framings shape the narrative of problems, causes, and solutions.

We performed a secondary quantitative frequency analysis in Python to fill in gaps and triangulate qualitative findings (Metag 2016; see Fig. 2). We measured the frequency count of selected keywords throughout the Pavilion speaker sessions, their co-occurrence with other keywords, and the term frequency-inverse document frequency (tf-idf) count (see Appendix1, Table A1.3; Rajaraman and Ullman 2011). The tf-idf provides a statistical measure of the relative importance of each word by considering its frequency within each document (tf) and across the entire dataset (idf) (Rajaraman and Ullman 2011). We used the tf-idf to identify words that are important or unique to different events of the Pavilion, as indicated by a high tf-idf score. Lastly, we integrated external data about the organizations that speakers represented and grouped them into sectors (e.g., national government, NGO, etc.) to track actor-type-specific trends (see Appendix 1, Table A1.4).

RESULTS

Speakers broadly framed water challenges as connectors between sustainable development and climate change challenges and emphasized that these challenges must be addressed together. Consistently, speakers explained that climate change deepens existing water issues and that its impacts are primarily experienced by society through water, such as through floods, droughts, and extreme weather, emphasizing quantity and overlooking quality issues. Speakers emphasized that water has been overlooked in COPs and welcomed the Water Pavilion’s objectives to center water challenges within climate goals, facilitate the integration of climate and the SDGs, and push the water sector to think more concretely and collaboratively about climate action (see Table 3).

Limited integration of “universal and equitable access” water framings

Speakers consistently discussed water and sanitation challenges, but rarely directly raised the SDG6 targets for “universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water” (SDG6.1) and “adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene” (SDG6.2) and never in the context of climate change action. Likewise, water justice and the human right to water, core organizing concepts for practitioners and researchers working on SDG6, were only occasionally discussed. Only a handful of speakers raised the idea that meeting the universal water and sanitation access targets under SDG6 is fundamental to meeting the Paris goals. Some speakers even noted this trend, expressing their concern that aspects of SDG6 around universal access and equity are receiving less attention in climate discussions, particularly on decarbonization. Universal and equitable water and sanitation access are important targets in SDG6 and are seen by development practitioners and scholars as fundamental to achieving other SDGs (UN General Assembly 2015, Matthews 2022) and reducing human vulnerability to climate change (Schipper and Pelling 2006, Hadwen et al. 2015, Eriksen et al. 2021, Birkmann et al. 2022).

In contrast, speakers often linked the SDG6 water resource management targets to the Paris Agreement goals. Speakers often referred to water’s role in achieving the Paris goals in terms of nature-based solutions, ecosystem services, and protecting biodiversity. Wetland and peatland restoration and conservation were often cited for their high carbon storage and buffering of sea level rise and flood events. Speakers likewise tied Paris goals to water resource management through hydropower, which remained controversial. Some speakers argued that hydropower provides benefits for mitigation by providing a renewable energy alternative to fossil fuels and adaptation by providing water storage. Others pointed to the emissions of dam construction and sediment build-up, ecological degradation, and the risk of not filling dams under drying conditions. However, speakers did not link the Paris Agreement goals to water management and WASH together. This split is visible in session titles and to some extent the day themes, e.g., climate-resilient water and sanitation versus nature days (see Appendix 1, Table A1.5). Matthews (2022) and de Melo et al. (2023) likewise documented that water sector divides are resurfacing as actors working on water resource management deepen links to climate change policy, while those working on WASH face different challenges in engaging with climate policymakers.

The role of water in achieving the Paris Agreement goals

Speakers clearly articulated the central role of water in achieving the Paris Agreement goals. Speakers frequently stated that achieving the Paris Agreement goals is only possible with action in the water sector. Speakers stressed the importance of decarbonizing the water sector and centering water in adaptation and resilience-building efforts to ensure the success of the Paris Agreement. In particular, speakers emphasized the critical role of water in achieving the Paris mitigation goals, aiming to challenge the common view of water as merely a climate adaptation issue (see Table 3). For example, speakers often reminded the audience that the water sector contributes 10% of global emissions (Moncrieff et al. 2020) and therefore achieving the Paris mitigation goals is only possible by decarbonizing the water sector. The untapped opportunities for decarbonization in the sanitation sector were often raised (see Table 3). International intergovernmental organizations (IIGOs) and NGOs spoke about the Paris Agreement the most across a broad range of applications (see Appendix 1, Table A1.6). Climate mitigation and adaptation were often discussed together (co-occurrence n = 254) and more speakers focused on a 1.5-degree temperature goal (n = 45) than a 2-degree goal (n = 27). Specific climate policy instruments under the Paris Agreement (Appendix 1, Table A1.3), including nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and national adaptation plans (NAPs), were frequently mentioned.

The emerging climate-water problem space

The climate-water problem space outlined by the Water Pavilion participants primarily centers around the Paris Agreement, although it also integrates aspects of SDG6. A prevailing focus on climate change is to be expected at a global climate change summit. However, the ways in which some SDG6 targets around sustainable water management are linked to climate change goals while other core SDG6 targets around universal and equitable water and sanitation access are rarely linked is notable. For example, speakers rarely discussed how achieving SDG6 targets for universal, safe, and equitable WASH achieves climate change adaptation or mitigation goals. In contrast, many speakers framed their remarks by saying that achieving the SDG6 targets is only possible with climate action under the Paris Agreement (see Table 3). Many speakers noted that climate change complicates efforts to achieve sustainable water management targets under SDG6, and some also noted this for drinking water and sanitation targets. These speakers warned that the billions of people lacking access to safe drinking water and sanitation face higher vulnerability and exposure to rising sea levels, droughts, and floods. Some also raised concerns that meeting SDG6 may slow progress on climate mitigation goals by requiring higher energy needs in areas with fossil fuel dependence. Another speaker asserted that a recent analysis showed the additional energy requirements for achieving SDG6 are marginal.

Speakers, especially those representing national governments, emphasized that mainstreaming water into the Paris goals via NDCs and NAPs will unlock climate finance for WASH-related activities. Some speakers argued that a focus on climate legitimizes claims by the water sector for public and multilateral climate funding, with the most significant potential benefits available in the sanitation sector. Beyond funding, many speakers argued for a focus on reducing methane emissions from unimproved sanitation in low-income settings, while a few speakers focused on the benefits for reducing human vulnerability to climate impacts. Some speakers highlighted how climate change has already been mainstreamed into the WASH sector and other development initiatives, citing examples from the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the United States Government (see Table 3).

However, cautionary voices warned that mainstreaming WASH into climate goals could be misguided because WASH projects do not always have measurable climate mitigation or adaptation benefits, nor should they need to. Shifting the focus toward WASH projects with a climate connection may overshadow projects that are greatly beneficial to communities but lack clear ties to Paris Agreement goals. For example, speakers emphasized the benefits of folding WASH targets into NDCs and the emissions reduction potential in sanitation systems, including wastewater treatment plants, but even more so in basic unimproved sanitation. Framing sanitation in terms of mitigation may open new finance streams and political attention. However, multiple speakers warned that prioritizing emissions reductions in project funding and design criteria over proven and essential benefits to a community for sanitation access would be a mistake. They indicated that prioritizing resources and attention for global decarbonization over the health and human right to sanitation of the poorest communities places the burden of reducing global emissions on the people least responsible for them (see Table 3).

Tensions in this new climate-water problem framing

The term resilience, which features in Paris but not SDG6, was used ubiquitously (Fig. 3a) but in vague terms and without a meaningful definition in discussing water and climate solutions. Speakers used resilience to refer to a range of scales and dimensions, from local, water basin, regional, national, and global scales to water and climate objectives and social and environmental systems. Various iterations of the term were used (e.g., water resilience, climate-resilient water, climate-resilient WASH, SDG-aligned climate resilience and adaptation), reflecting different starting points rather than distinct technical definitions (see Table 3). This trend mirrors a recent boom in the use of the term in policy, funding, and UNFCCC initiatives, likewise often in broad or malleable terms to satisfy multiple sectoral and conceptual definitions (Walker et al. 2004, Grasham et al. 2021, Angheloiu and Brainich 2022, Matthews 2022). For example, one speaker defined water resilience as acceptable quality, quantity, reliability, affordability, and universally accessible water for basic needs. Another defined SDG-aligned climate resilience quite similarly as high-quality water systems in which inequalities are addressed and WASH is robustly provided (see Table 3). The term resilience had a notably low tf-idf score, emphasizing the ubiquity and lack of unique meaning of the term, in contrast to adaptation, which had a high tf-idf score despite being used more frequently (Fig. 3a).

Inclusion was consistently raised as imperative to achieving both SDG6 and the Paris Agreement, while equity, which is a central concept in both, seldom appeared. The term inclusion was used 2.7 times more across the Pavilion than any other related concepts such as equity, empowerment, or justice. Inclusion was often used in broad terms or to refer to the inclusion of specific identity groups (e.g., by gender or race) who experience higher vulnerability to climate change or higher burdens of accessing and affording WASH. In rare cases in which speakers discussed equity or equality, it was most often to note unequal access to WASH and the unequal burdens of climate change rather than action and ways forward. Multiple speakers highlighted that poor communities and women and girls who already face challenges to water and sanitation access are uniquely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Likewise, speakers raised that the countries and communities most vulnerable to droughts, floods, and extreme weather are the least responsible for emissions (see Table 3). Equity and inclusion were raised most often by academics, when weighted for overall speaking time, and least often by representatives of development banks, who never used the terms equity or justice.

Which actors are engaged in defining the problem space

As to be expected in a COP Pavilion, NGOs and national governments led the conversation with over half of the 435 speakers representing NGOs (n = 150, 35%) and national governments (n = 74, 17%; Fig. 3c). These groups also spoke significantly longer per person than other actor groups at 1.4 and 1.3 times the average of the others, respectively (Fig. 3d). Nonprofit representatives drew specific connections between SDG6 and Paris Agreement issues and targets more often than any other group. Academics had the lowest representation and spoke the least per person (Fig. 3d). This finding is consistent with the work of Allan (2018, 2020), who found that NGOs play a key role in framing specific issue areas and sectors as climate change challenges and goals under the UNFCCC.

DISCUSSION

Speakers converged around a novel articulation of the central role of water in climate challenges and in achieving the Paris Agreement goals. We found that SDG6 targets for sustainable water resource management are reinforced in this new climate-water problem framing while universal and equitable WASH is largely scoped out of discussion. The water-climate problem space, however, is still actively being consolidated, a process that is shaped by how it is mainstreamed into UNFCCC policies and institutional workstreams. A review of day themes and session titles showed that the COP26 Water Pavilion climate-water problem framing is largely maintained in the COP27 and COP28 Water Pavilions, although with a deepened focus on inclusion, resilience, and UNFCCC policy (Appendix 1, Table A1.5). Resilience is ubiquitously used throughout to describe the solutions to these climate-water problems. The COP27 Water Pavilion features an inclusion-themed day and the COP28 Pavilion includes a day devoted to NDCs and NAPs and a second to the Global Goal on Adaptation (Appendix 1, Table A1.5).

As some COP26 Water Pavilion speakers warned and as the academic literature underlines, an emphasis on inclusion, rather than equity, and heavy reliance on a poorly defined concept of resilience could complicate achieving SDG6 and the Paris Agreement. Although inclusion is critical, its material benefits for marginalized groups are limited in the absence of a paralleled commitment to equity, as is dictated under SDG6 and Paris. By failing to deeply engage with equity and justice, those working in the climate-water space risk falling short of SDG and Paris Agreement goals, reproducing inequalities, and exacerbating the vulnerability of impoverished groups (Kohlitz et al. 2017, Grasham et al. 2021, Mills-Novoa et al. 2022). Likewise, a climate-water problem framing that leans heavily on resilience as an ambiguously defined and depoliticized salve risks glossing over underlying water justice and equity issues (Mikulewicz 2019, Rodina 2019, Zanotti et al. 2020, Grasham et al. 2021). Framing climate and water solutions loosely around resilience places the core focus on building the capacity of people or systems to withstand harm, rather than on reducing the harm itself. For example, in the case of a community water system facing more frequent flooding, a resilience framing tends to focus on solutions such as flood barriers and improved filtration. These measures manage the symptoms, while a harm-reducing solution would address the root causes of flooding through sustainable management of headwaters and correcting for historic state disinvestment and marginalization that heightened flood risk and vulnerability in certain communities.

In addition to how the climate-water problem space is defined in the Water Pavilion, it is also shaped by how it is mainstreamed into UNFCCC policy and programs. As various speakers raised, mainstreaming water into the UNFCCC through COP decisions and NDCs may enhance water-related issues by legitimizing claims for climate finance, streamlining policy, and elevating the visibility and political priority of water to a new set of global actors. Following calls at the end of the COP26 Water Pavilion, the Egyptian Government, as both the President of COP27 and convener of the COP27 Water Pavilion, secured COP’s first agenda item on water and mention of water in the outcome decision (de Melo et al. 2023, Matthews 2023). The outcome decision urged governments to “further integrate water into adaptation efforts” by “protecting, conserving and restoring water and water-related ecosystems” (UNFCCC 2022:4). The Global Goal on Adaptation, finalized the next year at COP28, mirrored this environmental focus but additionally called for governments to target “climate-resilient sanitation and towards access to safe and affordable potable water for all” (UNFCCC 2023:3). Whether a preferential focus on water resource management or a unified focus on all water sector issues will be mainstreamed into UNFCCC policy and programs is actively being defined by water actors.

That battleground in defining the climate-water problem space is now playing out in the third round of NDC submissions that national governments are due to submit to the UNFCCC in early 2025 (UNFCCC 2024). In current NDCs, water is not operationalized. Of the NDCs that discuss adaptation, 90% mention water, but only a handful meaningfully address SDG6 targets (Iceland and Black 2023). Guidance to governments on meaningfully considering water in adaptation and mitigation through targets and metrics abound (Timboe et al. 2020, Swedenborg et al. 2022, UNDP-SIWI 2023, UN-Water 2024). The framework of climate-resilient development also offers guidance to governments on how to integrate climate and water priorities in policy in a way that holds climate adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development as coupled and equally urgent priorities (Schipper et al. 2022). In their NDCs, national governments reflected their politics, goals, and financial priorities (Mills-Novoa and Liverman 2019). How governments discuss the climate-water problem space, or not, in their updated NDCs will consolidate the climate-water problem framing.

CONCLUSION

Using a qualitative and quantitative content analysis of the COP26 Water Pavilion, we provide an empirical benchmark of how global agenda setters in the water sector first articulated the climate-water problem space at this watershed event. We find that framings of universal and equitable water access, inherent to SDG6, are little mentioned in the Water Pavilion. Speakers frequently stated that achieving the Paris Agreement goals is only possible with action in the water sector. In contrast, speakers rarely discussed how achieving core SDG6 targets for universal, safe, and equitable WASH achieves climate change adaptation or mitigation goals. We find that water sector leaders, predominantly nonprofit and national government representatives, are largely overlooking SDG6 priorities of equity and universal access to WASH in defining the climate-water problem space. A ubiquitous but ambiguous use of the term resilience and focus on inclusion, rather than equity, are key tensions in this emerging climate-water problem space. Some participants in the Pavilion foregrounded this tension and stressed that water and sanitation equity, access, safety, and affordability are imperative and urgent priorities on their own without being carried by climate.

This case demonstrates the trade-offs that sectors navigate as they embed themselves into the UNFCCC process and Paris Agreement goals. Mainstreaming water into climate policy, funding, and programs may overshadow water issues in which climate connections are not explicit. Looking ahead, the water sector faces a key juncture. Water sector leaders have the option to further integrate themselves into the UNFCCC system, following the pattern of the COP26, COP27, and COP28 Water Pavilions. Alternatively, they have the option to push for a separate, new UN institutional framework on water that would shift the center of gravity of international negotiations to traditional water priorities but would risk siloing water from its interconnected issues. Porcher (2024) called for such a framework that includes a separate UN water treaty with a water COP for member parties, like those that exist for biodiversity, desertification, and climate change. In this vein, the UN Secretary General appointed a Special Envoy on Water last year as an outcome of the UN 2023 Water Conference (Nature 2023; https://press.un.org/en/2024/sga2315.doc.htm).

How national governments frame water challenges in their updated nationally determined contribution (NDC) submissions could consolidate this new climate-water problem framing into policy, develop new framings, or maintain the existing siloed framing. Future work could evaluate how climate-water problem framings evolve in NDC updates and future COP Water Pavilions and why certain actors are engaged in this process or not. Further work is also needed to evaluate the institutional and political merits of forming a new UN water governing body or further mainstreaming water into existing UN climate, biodiversity, and desertification work. Toward whichever new framing or governance approach, the framework of climate-resilient development offers language to clarify the relationship between work toward SDG6 and the Paris Agreement in a way that holds both as equal, maintains a focus on equity, and clarifies the terminology of resilience (Schipper et al. 2022). Through this framing, it becomes clear that achieving universal and equitable WASH is imperative to reducing vulnerability to climate change for the most vulnerable populations, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving human rights and sustainable development outcomes (Schipper et al. 2021, Singh and Chudasama 2021).

LITERATURE CITED

Allan, J. I. 2018. Seeking entry: discursive hooks and NGOs in global climate politics. Global Policy 9:560–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12586

Allan, J. I. 2019. Dangerous incrementalism of the Paris Agreement. Global Environmental Politics 19(1):4–11. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00488

Allan, J. I. 2020. The new climate activism: NGO authority and participation in climate change governance. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781487538125

Allan, R. P., M. Barlow, M. P. Byrne, A. Cherchi, H. Douville, H. J. Fowler, T. Y. Gan, A. G. Pendergrass, D. Rosenfeld, A. L. S. Swann, L. J. Wilcox, and O. Zolina. 2020. Advances in understanding large-scale responses of the water cycle to climate change. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1472:49–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14337

Angheloiu, C., and A. Brainich. 2022. COP27 resilience hub synthesis report: key messages and future directions. Regional Hub, Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. https://cop-resilience-hub.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/COP27-RH-Synthesis-Report.pdf

Arnell, N. W. 1999. Climate change and global water resources. Global Environmental Change 9:S31–S49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(99)00017-5

Bardwell, L. V. 1991. Problem-framing: a perspective on environmental problem-solving. Environmental Management 15:603–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02589620

Baumgartner, T., and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2013. UN-Water and its role in global water governance. Ecology and Society 18(3):3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05564-180303

Birkmann, J., A. Jamshed, J. M. McMillan, D. Feldmeyer, E. Totin, W. Solecki, Z. Z. Ibrahim, D. Roberts, R. Bezner Kerr, H.-O. Poertner, M. Pelling, R. Djalante, M. Garschagen, W. L. Filho, D. Guha-Sapir, and A. Alegría. 2022. Understanding human vulnerability to climate change: a global perspective on index validation for adaptation planning. Science of the Total Environment 803:150065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150065

Caretta, M. A., A. Mukherji, M. Arfanuzzaman, R. A. Betts, A. Gelfan, Y. Hirabayashi, T. K. Lissner, J. Liu, E. Lopez Gunn, R. Morgan, S. Mwanga, and S. Supratid. 2022. Water. Pages 551–712 in H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, and B. Rama, editors. Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.006

Chan, S., I. Boran, H. van Asselt, P. Ellinger, M. Garcia, T. Hale, L. Hermwille, K. L. Mbeva, A. Mert, C. B. Roger, A. Weinfurter, O. Widerberg, P. Bynoe, V. Chengo, A. Cherkaoui, T. Edwards, M. Gütschow, A. Hsu, N. Hultman, D. Levaï, S. Mihnar, S. Posa, M. Roelfsema, B. Rudyk, M. Scobie, and M. K. Shrivastava. 2021. Climate ambition and sustainable development for a new decade: a catalytic framework. Global Policy 12:245–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12932

Chan, S., T. Hale, A. Deneault, M. Shrivastava, K. Mbeva, V. Chengo, and J. Atela. 2022. Assessing the effectiveness of orchestrated climate action from five years of summits. Nature Climate Change 12:628–633. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01405-6

Cheng, Z., S. Yan, T. Song, L. Cheng, and H. Wang. 2022. Adaptive water governance research in social sciences journals: a bibliometric analysis. Water Policy 24(12):1951–1970. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2022.196

Convention of the Parties (COP27). 2022a. Water day: elements of the day. In COP27 presidency vision (thematic days) 10/18 November 2022. COP27, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. https://www.cop27.eg/assets/files/thematic-days/WATER%20DAY.pdf

Convention of the Parties (COP27). 2022b. Sharm-El-Sheikh adaptation agenda: protecting lives, livelihoods, and ecosystems. COP27, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. https://www.climatechampions.net/frameworks/sharm-el-sheikh-adaptation-agenda/

Convention of the Parties (COP28). 2023. COP28 UAE BLUE ZONE: PAVILIONS EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST. COP28, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

de Melo, M. C., L. F. S. Fernandes, T. C. T. Pissarra, C. A. Valera, A. M. da Costa, and F. A. L. Pacheco. 2023. The COP27 screened through the lens of global water security. Science of the Total Environment 873:162303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162303

Dennis, E. M., and E. Brondizio. 2020. Problem framing influences linkages among networks of collective action situations for water provision, wastewater, and water conservation in a metropolitan region. International Journal of the Commons 14:313–328. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.974

de Wit, S., E. Luseka, D. Bradley, J. Brown, J. Bhagwan, B. Evans, M. C. Freeman, G. Howard, I. Ray, I. Ross, S. Simiyu, O. Cumming, and C. I. R. Chandler. 2024. Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH): the evolution of a global health and development sector. BMJ Global Health 9(10). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-015367

Entman, R. M. 1993. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43:51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x

Eriksen, S., E. L. F. Schipper, M. Scoville-Simonds, K. Vincent, H. N. Adam, N. Brooks, B. Harding, D. Khatri, L. Lenaerts, D. Liverman, M. Mills-Novoa, M. Mosberg, S. Movik, B. Muok, A. Nightingale, H. Ojha, L. Sygna, M. Taylor, C. Vogel, and J. J. West. 2021. Adaptation interventions and their effect on vulnerability in developing countries: help, hindrance or irrelevance? World Development 141:105383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105383

Grafton, R. Q., A. K. Biswas, H. Bosch, S. Fanaian, J. Gupta, A. Revi, N. Sami, and C. Tortajada. 2023. Goals, progress and priorities from Mar del Plata in 1977 to New York in 2023. Nature Water 1(3):230–240. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-023-00041-4

Graham, N. T., E. G. R. Davies, M. I. Hejazi, K. Calvin, S. H. Kim, L. Helinski, F. R. Miralles-Wilhelm, L. Clarke, P. Kyle, P. Patel, M. A. Wise, and C. R. Vernon. 2018. Water sector assumptions for the shared socioeconomic pathways in an integrated modeling framework. Water Resources Research 54(9):6423–6440. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023452

Grasham, C. F., R. Calow, V. Casey, K. J. Charles, S. de Wit, E. Dyer, J. Fullwood-Thomas, M. Hirons, R. Hope, S. Ferdous Hoque, W. Jepson, M. Korzenevica, R. Murphy, J. Plastow, I. Ross, I. Ruiz-Apilánez, E. L. F. Schipper, J. Trevor, N. Walmsley, and H. Zaidi. 2021. Engaging with the politics of climate resilience towards clean water and sanitation for all. npj Clean Water 4:42. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41545-021-00133-2

Hadwen, W. L., B. Powell, M. C. MacDonald, M. Elliott, T. Chan, W. Gernjak, and W. G. L. Aalbersberg. 2015. Putting WASH in the water cycle: climate change, water resources and the future of water, sanitation and hygiene challenges in Pacific Island Countries. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development 5:183–191. https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2015.133

Hale, T. 2016. “All Hands on Deck”: the Paris Agreement and nonstate climate action. Global Environmental Politics 16:12–22. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00362

Hjerpe, M., and B.-O. Linnér. 2010. Functions of COP side-events in climate-change governance. Climate Policy 10:167–180. https://doi.org/10.3763/cpol.2008.0617

Iceland, C., and C. Black. 2023. UN water conference 2023: not enough game-changing commitments. World Resource Institute, Washington, D.C., USA. https://www.wri.org/insights/un-water-conference-2023-needed-outcomes

Ingemarsson, M. L., J. Weinberg, T. Rudebeck, and L. W. Erlandsson. 2022. Unpacking freshwater’s role in climate change mitigation. Stockholm International Water Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. https://siwi.org/publications/executive-summary-water-mitigation/

International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). 2023. Summary of the UN 2023 water conference: 22–24 March 2023, Earth Negotiations Bulletin. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. https://enb.iisd.org/un-2023-water-conference-summary

Janetschek, H., C. Brandi, A. Dzebo, and B. Hackmann. 2020. The 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement: voluntary contributions towards thematic policy coherence. Climate Policy 20:430–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1677549

Klein, R. J. T., E. L. F. Schipper, and S. Dessai. 2005. Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions. Environmental Science and Policy 8:579–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2005.06.010

Kohlitz, J. P., J. Chong, and J. Willetts. 2017. Climate change vulnerability and resilience of water, sanitation, and hygiene services: a theoretical perspective. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for Development 7:181–195. https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.2017.134

Krippendorff, K. 2013. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781

Kuyper, J. W., B.-O. Linnér, and H. Schroeder. 2018. Non-state actors in hybrid global climate governance: justice, legitimacy, and effectiveness in a post-Paris era. WIREs Climate Change 9:e497. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.497

Matthews, J. H. 2022. SDG 6: blending two visions of resilience for water. In S. Bhowmick and N. Ghosh, editors. Sustainable development in action: examining global north-south divergences. Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi, India.

Matthews, J. H. 2023. Climate policy is inundating the SDGs. Nature Water 1(3):216–218. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-023-00048-x

McSweeney, R. 2022. Analysis: which countries have sent the most delegates to COP27?. Carbon Brief, London, UK. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-have-sent-the-most-delegates-to-cop27/

Metag, J. 2016. Content analysis in climate change communication. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.486

Mikulewicz, M. 2019. Thwarting adaptation’s potential? A critique of resilience and climate-resilient development. Geoforum 104:267–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.05.010

Mills-Novoa, M., R. Boelens, and J. Hoogesteger. 2022. Climate change and water justice. Pages 399–418 in T. M. Letcher, editor. Water and climate change: sustainable development, environmental and policy issues. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-99875-8.00014-8

Mills-Novoa, M., and D. M. Liverman. 2019. Nationally determined contributions: material climate commitments and discursive positioning in the NDCs. WIREs Climate Change 10:e589. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.589

Moncrieff, C., C. Copeland, C. Lamb, L. Missaire, and F. O’Halloran. 2020. A wave of change: the role of companies in building a water-secure world. CDP, London, UK. https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/cms/reports/documents/000/005/577/original/CDP_Water_analysis_report_2020.pdf?1617987510

Nature. 2023. Global action on water: less rhetoric and more science. Nature 615:766. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00886-5

Obergassel, W., S. Bauer, L. Hermwille, S. C. Aykut, I. Boran, S. Chan, C. Fraude, R. J. T. Klein, K. A. Mar, H. Schroeder, and K. Simeonova. 2022. From regime‐building to implementation: harnessing the UN climate conferences to drive climate action. WIREs Climate Change 13:e797. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.797

Ovink, H., S. Rahimzoda, J. Cullman, and A. J. Imperiale. 2023. The UN 2023 Water Conference and pathways towards sustainability transformation for a water-secure world. Nature Water 1:212–215. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-023-00052-1

Porcher, S. 2024. The world needs a COP for water like the one for climate change. Nature 628(8008):502. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01085-6

Rajaraman, A., and J. D. Ullman. 2011. Data mining. Pages 1–17 in A. Rajaraman and J. D. Ullman, editors. Mining of massive datasets. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139058452.002

Rodina, L. 2019. Defining “water resilience”: debates, concepts, approaches, and gaps. WIREs Water 6(2):e1334. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1334

Schipper, E. L. F. 2006. Conceptual history of adaptation in the UNFCCC Process. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law 15:82–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9388.2006.00501.x

Schipper, E. L. F., S. E. Eriksen, L. R. Fernandez-Carril, B. C. Glavovic, and Z. Shawoo. 2021. Turbulent transformation: abrupt societal disruption and climate resilient development. Climate and Development 13:467–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1799738

Schipper, E. L. F., A. Revi, B. L. Preston, E. R. Carr, S. H. Eriksen, L. R. Fernandez-Carril, B. C. Glavovic, N. J. M. Hilmi, D. Ley, R. Mukerji, M. S. Muylaert de Araujo, R. Perez, S. K. Rose, and P. K. Singh. 2022. Climate resilient development pathways. Pages 2655–2807 in H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, and B. Rama, editors. Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.027

Schipper, L., and M. Pelling. 2006. Disaster risk, climate change and international development: scope for, and challenges to, integration. Disasters 30:19–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2006.00304.x

Schroeder, H., and H. Lovell. 2012. The role of non-nation-state actors and side events in the international climate negotiations. Climate Policy 12:23–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2011.579328

Singh, P. K., and H. Chudasama. 2021. Pathways for climate resilient development: human well-being within a safe and just space in the 21st century. Global Environmental Change 68:102277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102277

Sovacool, B. K., and B.-O. Linnér. 2016. The perils of climate diplomacy: the political economy of the UNFCCC. Pages 110–135 in B. K. Sovacool and B.-O. Linnér, editors. The political economy of climate change adaptation. Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137496737_5

Swedenborg, E., K. Davis, D. Hebart Coleman, M. Kjellen, J. Matthews, I. Sato, L. Schleifer, N. Stein, and I. Timboe. 2022. NDC enhancement: opportunities through water. Working paper. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., USA. https://doi.org/10.46830/wriwp.20.00025

Timboe, I., K. Pharr, and J. H. Matthews. 2020. Watering the NDCs: national climate planning for 2020 and beyond. Alliance for Global Water Adaptation, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. https://www.alliance4water.org/wateringthendcs

United Nations (UN). 2022. Water action agenda: concept note outlining its operations. United Nations, New York, New York, USA. https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Water_Action_Agenda_operations_concept_note.pdf

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)-Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) Water Governance Facility. 2023. Water in the nationally determined contributions: increasing ambition for the future. Stockholm International Water Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. https://siwi.org/publications/water-in-the-nationally-determined-contributions-increasing-ambition-for-the-future/

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2015. Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. T.I.A.S. No. 16-1104. UNFCCC, Bonn, Germany. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/parisagreement_publication.pdf

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2022. Sharm el-Sheikh implementation plan. UNFCCC, Bonn, Germany. https://unfccc.int/documents/624444

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2024. From vision to reality: NDCs 3.0 bending the curve. UNFCCC, Bonn, Germany. https://unfccc.int/documents/637412

United Nations General Assembly. 2015. A/RES/70/1 Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations, New York, New York, USA. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf

United Nations General Assembly. 2017. 71/313. Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations, New York, New York, USA. https://ggim.un.org/documents/a_res_71_313.pdf

United Nations-Water (UN-Water). 2019. Climate change and water: UN-Water policy brief. United Nations-Water, Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.unwater.org/sites/default/files/app/uploads/2019/10/UN_Water_PolicyBrief_ClimateChange_Water.pdf

United Nations-Water (UN-Water) 2024. UN-Water analytical brief on water for climate mitigation. United Nations-Water, Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.unwater.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/UN-Water_Analytical_Brief_on_Water_Feb1-2025.pdf

Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems, Ecology and Society 9(2):5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00650-090205

Water Pavilion. 2023. Water for Climate. https://waterforclimate.net/

Woodhouse, P., and M. Muller. 2017. Water governance — an historical perspective on current debates. World Development 92:225–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.014

Yasin, H. Q., J. Breadsell, and M. N. Tahir. 2021. Climate-water governance: a systematic analysis of the water sector resilience and adaptation to combat climate change in Pakistan. Water Policy 23(1):1–35. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2020.113

Zanotti, L., Z. Ma, J. L. Johnson, D. R. Johnson, D. J. Yu, M. Burnham, and C. Carothers. 2020. Sustainability, resilience, adaptation, and transformation: tensions and plural approaches. Ecology and Society 25(3):4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11642-250304