Popular

Obscuring Complexity and Performing Progress: Unpacking SDG Indicator 6.5.1 and the Implementation of IWRM

Anna Mdee
School of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK a.l.mdee@leeds.ac.uk

Alesia D. Ofori
Centre for Water, Environment and Development, School of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK alesia.ofori@cranfield.ac.uk

Joshua Cohen
School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK j.b.cohen@leeds.ac.uk

Marianne Kjellén
Independent Technical Advisory Panel, Green Climate Fund, Stockholm, Sweden kjellenmarianne@gmail.com

Elliot Rooney
UKRI–GCRF Water Security and Sustainable Development Hub, Newcastle University, UK e.rooney2@newcastle.ac.uk

Shivani Singhal
School of Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK ipissi@leeds.ac.uk

Jaime Amezaga
Centre for Water, Newcastle University, School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK jaime.amezaga@newcastle.ac.uk

Ankush
Department of Physical Planning, School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi, India ankush.ra@spa.ac.in

Alejandro Figueroa-Benítez
Universidad del Cauca, Doctorado Interinstitucional en Ciencias Ambientales, Popayán, Colombia alemagnoprimero@unicauca.edu.co

Shambavi Gupta
Department of Physical Planning, School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi, India guptashambhavi5@gmail.com

Alemseged Tamiru Haile
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia a.t.haile@cgiar.org

Amare Haileslassie
Water and Land Resource Centre, Addis Ababa University; and College of Development Studies, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia amare.b@wlrc-eth.org

Victor Kongo
Africa Environmental Solutions, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania victor.kongo@gwpsaf.org

Ashok Kumar
Department of Physical Planning, School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi, India a.kumar@spa.ac.in

Samy Andrés Mafla Noguera
CINARA Institute, Universidad del Valle, Calle, Colombia samy.mafla@correounivalle.edu.co

Mohsen Nagheeby
UKRI–GCRF Water Security and Sustainable Development Hub, Newcastle University, Centre for Water, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK mohsen.nagheeby@newcastle.ac.uk

Zainura Zainon Noor
Center for Environmental Sustainability and Water Security (IPASA), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), 81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia zainurazn@utm.my

Xanthe Polaine
UKRI–GCRF Water Security and Sustainable Development Hub, Newcastle University, UK x.polaine1@newcastle.ac.uk

Nitin Singh
Department of Physical Planning, School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi, India urpnitin@gmail.com

Ruth Sylvester
School of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; cnres@leeds.ac.uk

Wan Asiah Nurjannah Wan Ahmad Tajuddin
Centre for Environmental Sustainability and Water Security (IPASA), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), 81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia; wanasiahnurjannah@graduate.utm.my

Zulkifli Bin Yusop
Centre for Environmental Sustainability and Water Security (IPASA), Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), 81310, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia; zulyusop@utm.my

Julián Zúñiga-Barragán
Universidad del Valle, Colombia; julian.zuniga@correounivalle.edu.co

ABSTRACT: 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. 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.

KEYWORDS: IWRM, indicators, politics of data, SDG 6.5.1, Colombia, Ethiopia, India, Malaysia, UK