Co-Creating Water Security: From Transparency to Action

Waterproof 2026 brought together more than 400 water experts, policymakers, academics and innovators in The Hague to collaborate on solutions for global climate action, water security and sustainable development ahead of the UN Water Conference.

The future of water security was the theme for the events final roundtable specifically how can innovations become lasting practical solutions on the ground. Water engineer Dorien Lugt of HKV opened the session with a direct challenge to the sector: innovation only succeeds when paired with transparency, honest self-reflection and realistic implementation.

The Reality of Urban Flooding

Lugt highlighted the growing pressures facing rapidly urbanising cities such as Accra, Abidjan and Nairobi. Rapid population growth and land scarcity continue to push vulnerable communities into building homes in flood-prone areas, including riverbeds while drainage and waste systems struggle to keep pace. Blocked drains, expanding paved surfaces and more extreme rainfall combine to create devastating floods that can occur within hours.

While Dutch water experts frequently respond with advanced technological solutions, Lugt warned that technology alone cannot solve these challenges. AI forecasting systems, satellite imagery and predictive models may hold enormous potential, but they are often introduced into environments struggling with unstable internet access, unreliable electricity, limited maintenance budgets and high staff turnover.

“Technologies alone don’t solve issues,” Lugt stated, emphasising that if a solution cannot function under real-world constraints, it was never a true solution in the first place.

To truly transform innovation into sustainable impact, Lugt identified three major areas where critical thinking often falls short.

Three blind spots in implementation

To transform innovation into sustainable impact, Lugt suggested that the sector needs greater transparency and self-reflection about how projects are designed and delivered.

The first challenge is defining the problem itself. While participatory approaches are increasing amongst the Dutch water sector, practitioners often accept stakeholder narratives too quickly without verifying whether they reflect local realities.

Lugt recalled a flood forecasting project in Ethiopia where a municipal officer described challenges using language that perfectly matched the engineers’ expectations. The team later discovered that the officer held a PhD in disaster risk management and was unconsciously repeating academic frameworks rather than offering practical local insight.

Lugt stressed that practitioners must question where information originates to avoid solving theoretical problems rather than addressing actual community needs.

The second challenge is project design. Even when problems are correctly identified, projects frequently fail of competing institutional pressures.

The private sector must protect profitability, researchers pursue publications, NGOs advance advocacy goals and donors focus on measurable KPIs. Lugt noted: “While these motivations are understandable, they are rarely discussed openly so projects become shaped by hidden incentives”.

The third challenge is projects becoming trapped in process. While governance, inclusion and stakeholder engagement are essential, Lugt warned that projects can become trapped in endless consultations and assessments. Communities facing severe flooding need more than reports, they need real implementation. “Move”, she urged warning that projects risk becoming bureaucratic exercises rather than meaningful climate action.

From Discussion to Action: The 2030 Breakthrough Plans

Lugt’s closing summary to be critically of how the sector defines problems, designs solutions and evaluates impact served as the perfect springboard for the afternoon’s roundtable discussions.

Inspired by her insightful and moving speech, the roundtables explored how to co-create a “2030 breakthrough plan” capable of accelerating progress toward balanced water security. Many of the ideas that emerged directly reflected Lugt’s call to confront infrastructure gaps, financing structures and operational realities.

Redesigning Project Management
Participants called for project frameworks that prioritise rigorous local problem definition from the outset and called for greater decision-making power to be placed in the hands of local communities, civil society organisations and grassroots actors.

Long-term monitoring and evaluation, they argued, should be integrated from the outset rather than treated as a final reporting exercise.

Learning from Failure
A major theme throughout the discussions was the need to normalise honest conversations about failure — or “failing forward.”

Participants argued that the sector learns too slowly because organisations are often unwilling to publicly discuss unsuccessful projects. One proposed solution was the creation of platforms dedicated to sharing “beautiful failures,” enabling institutions to openly learn from operational mistakes, ineffective models and collaboration breakdowns.

Building Financial Sustainability
Many water projects collapse once international funding ends. Participants stressed the importance of embedding maintenance plans, operational financing and clear exit strategies into projects from the beginning.

Local institutions, they argued, must be trained, funded and positioned to independently manage infrastructure over the long term.

Reforming Funding Models
Experts also called for more flexible and patient financing structures. Rather than prioritising short-term, high-visibility technology pilots, funding models should support slower, context-driven implementation and long-term scaling.

Participants encouraged greater investment in rural water access, circular systems and nature-based solutions alongside cutting-edge technologies.

Connecting Technology with Local Reality
Finally, participants explored how advanced technologies could better support local needs. Suggestions included open-source data systems, shared digital twins and collaborative platforms capable of connecting international technology providers with local governments, NGOs and researchers.

The goal, participants emphasised, is not simply to develop more technology, but to ensure that innovation is grounded in operational realities serving local realities.

Conclusion

The conversations at Waterproof 2026 made one thing unmistakably clear: the future of international water security will not be determined by technology alone, but by a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about how the sector operates.

Forecasting systems, AI models, satellite imagery and digital tools all hold enormous potential — but only when grounded in genuine local needs, supported by sustainable financing and paired with honest collaboration throughout every stage of implementation.

Lugt’s call for transparency challenges the Dutch water sector to move beyond polished strategies and theoretical innovation toward practical, accountable action. That means questioning assumptions, openly acknowledging institutional constraints, learning from failure and ensuring communities remain empowered long after the project ends.

If innovation is to create lasting impact, success can no longer be measured solely by the sophistication of technology or the ambition of project plans. It must instead be measured by whether solutions continue functioning years later — under real-world conditions, in the hands of local communities and in service of long-term climate resilience.

The path forward is not simply about building smarter systems, but building more honest partnerships and more durable structures that are sustainable long after the pilots and funding cycles end.