Enabling environment: Waterproof 2026 and the conditions for change

At the Waterproof event by Partners for Water, over 50 tables of water professionals spent the day tackling one of the sector’s most persistent challenges: not the lack of solutions, but the lack of conditions to make them work.

The gap between policy and practice

A recurring theme of Waterproof 2026 was the critical gap between water governance and climate action on the ground. While advanced climate and water policies exist, translating them into local implementation remains highly contested and complex.

The opening discussion focused on the central theme that the UN has declared an era of ‘global water bankruptcy’. With 68 water projects on display at the event, it was clear that the ideas are there but scaling them remains a colossal task. Success depends on having the right policies and regulations in place, ensuring fair and accessible funding, available and trustworthy data and making sure the right people have a seat at the table.

From pilots to systems

Participants argued against the tendency to fund isolated experiments that never scale. One table noted that only doing a pilot is affecting the livelihoods of real people and there is too much focus on solutions and not on the necessary systems.

The output from the enabling environment session captured this consensus: Partners for Water’s next programme should prioritise facilitating local champions to convene actors and drive systemic change, rather than managing projects from a distance.

Local ownership

Perhaps the most consistent theme across all rounds was the need for genuine local ownership. Participants argued that climate adaptation works only when it is local, community-owned and built on mutual interest and respect from the start.

Enhancing that was the conversation around the value of indigenous and local knowledge. Participants suggested that many communities already have their own adaptation strategies, making the case for supporting and amplifying those ideas, rather than replacing them.

Neha Mungekar of IHE Delft Institute for Water Education reinforced this from a governance perspective. The main obstacle to implementing water solutions, she argues, is not technology, but human behaviour. Participatory platforms tend to invite the wrong people: “We fill rooms with experts and representatives, but rarely with those who experience the problem.” In Bhopal, India, she brought health practitioners and water authorities, the latter of which had been denying groundwater contamination. After a heated exchange backed by hard data, they eventually acknowledged it. “For me, this was a big win.”

Her broader lesson echoed throughout the discussions: “Sustainability without justice causes harm…change must be culturally situated and sensitive to loss.”

Finally, she emphasised that breaking silos requires “creating safe spaces for encouraging all voices” and getting “marginalised groups (youth, women, indigenous groups, etc.) driving the UN conference rather than just attending it.”

Finance and innovative mechanisms

On financing, the picture was sobering. With only five specialist water tech investors globally, patient capital remains scarce – 80 percent of investors have invested in water technology only once. Liza Faber of Pure Terra Ventures argued that the perception of water being unattractive to investors is a misconception. “The real challenge is that the problems are accelerating faster than the solutions can be deployed.”

Ferdinand Segers of Plan International noted that many companies underestimate how water risks will affect them, making them reluctant to invest proactively. Plan International is exploring blended finance that combine grants with private investment, using donated funds to absorb risk and attract investors.

Meanwhile, the World Bank’s newly launched Water Forward Programme secured commitment from 14 countries to establish budgets and create the right policy conditions to unlock SDG 6 funding.

A major funding gap remains for projects that are too large for small pilot grants, but too risky for institutional investors. Several tables called for a dedicated catalytic fund, with Partners for Water acting as a risk-taker to encourage private investment in water innovation and technology.

Other proposals included Watershed Investment Programmes where water users dedicate 1 percent of their water bill to watershed restoration and True Pricing, which embeds the full costs of water into product prices to build financial capacity and educate communities about the real cost of water use. A more radical economic proposal involved forgiving foreign debt of low-to-middle income countries to fund mitigation and adaptation without creating new debt burdens.

A recurring structural obstacle is governments keeping water tariffs artificially low for political reasons, undermining the financial sustainability of water services.

Data, AI and the politics of information

A conversation emerged around data. New national laws in countries like Vietnam are actively prohibiting open data exchange, while, as one participant noted you can’t adapt to climate change if data is not being shared. AI was welcomed as a tool for early warning and coordination and for preserving institutional memory, but concerns rose around its energy and water footprint and the risk of data being weaponised by governments. Paradoxically, AI is both a heavy water consumer and a tool for solving the very crisis it contributes to. Participants argued that data should in the long run be democratised and accessible for all citizens.

Long timelines, structural commitment

The Dutch Diamond model, bringing together government, business, knowledge institutions and civil society, was praised and scrutinised through examples from Vietnam and Ghana demonstrating successful local initiatives that struggle to be adopted more broadly.

The Netherlands’ Delta Fund was highlighted as a model of structural commitment embedded in law and therefore largely insulated from political change. On a broader scale, there was a call to create an EU Water Strategy and a water availability Directive to coordinate efforts and share lessons learned.

Unambiguously there was agreement that attention must extend beyond delivery to maintenance, monitoring and long-term follow-up.

The final call

The closing call to action captured the spirit of the whole day: “By 2040, fund community-led water adaptation through ethical AI, transparent data sharing, youth leadership and local knowledge and de-politicise water.”

The 2030 breakthrough plan added further urgency calling for radical public awareness of water security, through for instance a worldwide International Day Without Water to personalise the crises.

Three clear priorities emerged for Partners for Water’s next programme: facilitate local champions to drive systemic change; act as a catalyst by providing a de-risking fund that bridges the gap between pilots and scale; and commit to long-term programme timelines that cover the full project cycle. The conditions for change are understood. The question is whether the structures will follow.