The High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) has progressively become the annual barometer for where we stand on the world’s most pressing challenges. Back in July 2025, water featured prominently in both the intergovernmental discussions and the associated SDG Business Forum. The words were strong, the commitments ambitious, and the energy undeniable. Yet as I went through the ourcomes of the meetings, I could not escape a persistent concern: we might still framing water progress too narrowly, as if the measure of success were simply about extending coverage, specially from a national perspective. The truth is more complicated, and more sobering. Expanding access matters, but what matters even more is whether those services remain reliable, safe, and resilient over time. Without continuity and quality, coverage gains will prove fleeting.
The latest data from the WHO–UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme illustrate this paradox with stark clarity. On paper, the world has moved forward. Since 2015, nearly one billion people have gained access to safely managed drinking water, and over a billion have secured improved sanitation. Hygiene coverage, too, has increased steadily. Yet the gaps remain staggering: 2.1 billion people still lack access to safely managed drinking water, more than 3.4 billion do not have safely managed sanitation, and 1.7 billion are without basic hygiene. These are not abstract figures. They represent households where children or women must walk miles for unsafe water, hospitals where mothers give birth without adequate sanitation, and schools where students cannot wash their hands. And beneath the numbers lies an even deeper challenge: even where services exist, they are often intermittent, unsafe, or financially out of reach. The JMP’s data remind us that progress defined solely by coverage can obscure a more uncomfortable truth: that reliability is our weakest point.
This reality became evident in the HLPF discussions themselves. Several country presentations, from Bhutan to Rwanda to Saudi Arabia, showcased what can be achieved when policy, finance, and technical expertise converge in coherent national strategies. These examples were inspiring, but they also highlighted a common denominator: success did not come from treating water as a silo. It came from embedding water policy within broader systems: health, housing, energy, education, and digital infrastructure, among others. Integrated planning is not a buzzword; it is the only way to make service improvements sustainable. If water supply is expanded without attention to the energy needed to pump and treat it, the system falters. If sanitation is built without linking it to housing and public health planning, usage rates decline. If digital solutions are rolled out without addressing affordability, inequalities deepen. At the Forum, it became clear that the water community must position itself not as a single-sector advocate but as a systemic partner, one that understands how water enables all other services to function.
The conversations on innovation added another dimension. Side events featuring student-led solutions and youth-driven entrepreneurship underscored the potential of the next generation. From rainwater harvesting prototypes to novel purification technologies, the ingenuity was striking. Yet what impresses me most is not the novelty of the solutions but the pragmatism of their designers. Many young innovators spoke less about disruptive technologies and more about durability, maintenance, and affordability: the very qualities often overlooked in large-scale projects. Their perspective was a reminder that reliability should guide innovation, not just novelty. At the same time, the debates on artificial intelligence revealed both the promise and peril of digital transformation. AI can optimize water distribution, predict failures, and enhance monitoring, but it also risks entrenching divides if access to data and computing power remains concentrated in a handful of countries and corporations. The HLPF left no doubt that innovation must be harnessed, but also governed, with inclusivity and equity at its core.
This brings me to the question of private-sector engagement, a recurring theme in the SDG Business Forum. It is fashionable to assert that the private sector holds the keys to scaling solutions, mobilizing capital, and delivering efficiency. As a CEO, I naturally welcome this recognition. Yet we must resist the temptation to view private participation as a panacea. Investment is essential, but it is not sufficient. Without clear regulatory frameworks, transparent accountability mechanisms, and performance-based contracts, private involvement will certainly not deliver. In too many cases, profit-driven models gravitate toward urban, high-income markets where returns are secure, leaving rural or fragile communities further behind. More often than not, private companies are not to blame. Moreover, service contracts often emphasize expansion targets without equal weight on continuity, quality, or affordability, an issue that is highly contingent on public policies.
At the HLPF, ministers spoke of “partnerships” with business, and I do not doubt their sincerity. But true partnership requires reciprocity and accountability. For companies like mine, that means committing to outcomes that go beyond shareholder returns. It means accepting performance clauses tied to service reliability, equitable pricing, and community engagement. For governments, it means creating an enabling environment with regulatory stability, risk-sharing instruments, and clear long-term planning. The private sector can and should be part of the solution, but only within governance frameworks that prioritize equity, sustainability, and resilience above short-term gain.
If there was one encouraging thread running through the discussions, it was the growing recognition that equity must be central. Fragile contexts, in particular, remain underserved: the JMP notes that safely managed drinking water coverage in fragile settings is 38% lower than in more stable environments. Rural areas too continue to lag. Unless deliberate mechanisms (subsidies, blended finance, targeted infrastructure funds) are deployed, these gaps will widen. The HLPF debates hinted at such mechanisms, but much more detail and political courage will be required to operationalize them.
So, what lessons should we carry forward from this year’s blue conversations? First, we must reframe success. Coverage expansion is necessary but not sufficient; continuity, reliability, and dignity are the real benchmarks. Second, we must fully embrace integrated planning, recognizing that water services are inseparable from housing, health, energy, and digital systems. Third, we must elevate the voices and ideas of youth, ensuring their pragmatism and creativity shape large-scale investments. Fourth, we must redefine private-sector engagement so that it is anchored in accountability and equity, not just capital mobilization. Finally, we must target the margins deliberately, for it is in rural, fragile, and low-income settings where the global water crisis is most acute. All this demands specific public policies to address this societal challenges.
The HLPF and SDG Business Forum remind us that there is no shortage of commitments, declarations, and pilot projects. The risk, however, is that we mistake declarations for delivery. Blue commitments are valuable only if they translate into continuity and high-quality service: into services that are there when families turn on the tap, when hospitals prepare for surgery, when farmers water their fields. The credibility of the entire SDG agenda depends on this stability, for without water, no other service can stand. As a global water-solutions company, we are committed to playing our part. But the responsibility is shared, across governments, businesses, communities, and young innovators. The challenge is not whether we can promise more, but whether we can deliver better, and deliver for all.
