The Challenges of Water Management and Governance in Cities Kees van Leeuwen, Jan Hofman, Peter Driessen and Jos Frijns www.mdpi.com/journal/water Edited by Printed Edition of the Special Issue Published in Water The Challenges of Water Management and Governance in Cities The Challenges of Water Management and Governance in Cities Special Issue Editors Kees van Leeuwen Jan Hofman Peter Driessen Jos Frijns MDPI • Basel • Beijing • Wuhan • Barcelona • Belgrade Special Issue Editors Kees van Leeuwen Utrecht University The Netherlands Jan Hofman University of Bath UK Peter Driessen Utrecht University The Netherlands Jos Frijns KWR Water Research Institute The Netherlands Editorial Office MDPI St. Alban-Anlage 66 4052 Basel, Switzerland This is a reprint of articles from the Special Issue published online in the open access journal Water (ISSN 2073-4441) from 2018 to 2019 (available at: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water/special issues/Challenges Water Management Governance Cities) For citation purposes, cite each article independently as indicated on the article page online and as indicated below: LastName, A.A.; LastName, B.B.; LastName, C.C. Article Title. Journal Name Year , Article Number , Page Range. ISBN 978-3-03921-150-0 (Pbk) ISBN 978-3-03921-151-7 (PDF) Cover image courtesy of Kees van Leeuwen. c © 2019 by the authors. Articles in this book are Open Access and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license, which allows users to download, copy and build upon published articles, as long as the author and publisher are properly credited, which ensures maximum dissemination and a wider impact of our publications. The book as a whole is distributed by MDPI under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND. Contents About the Special Issue Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Preface to ”The Challenges of Water Management and Governance in Cities” . . . . . . . . . . ix Kees van Leeuwen, Jan Hofman, Peter P.J. Driessen and Jos Frijns The Challenges of Water Management and Governance in Cities Reprinted from: Water 2019 , 11 , 1180, doi:10.3390/w11061180 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Alexandros K. Makarigakis and Blanca Elena Jimenez-Cisneros UNESCO’s Contribution to Face Global Water Challenges Reprinted from: Water 2019 , 11 , 388, doi:10.3390/w11020388 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Oriana Romano and Aziza Akhmouch Water Governance in Cities: Current Trends and Future Challenges Reprinted from: Water 2019 , 11 , 500, doi:10.3390/w11030500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Hyowon Kim, Jaewoo Son, Seockheon Lee, Stef Koop, Kees van Leeuwen, Young June Choi and Jeryang Park Assessing Urban Water Management Sustainability of a Megacity: Case Study of Seoul, South Korea Reprinted from: Water 2018 , 10 , 682, doi:10.3390/w10060682 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Boipelo Madonsela, Stef Koop, Kees van Leeuwen and Kirsty Carden Evaluation of Water Governance Processes Required to Transition towards Water Sensitive Urban Design—An Indicator Assessment Approach for the City of Cape Town Reprinted from: Water 2019 , 11 , 292, doi:10.3390/w11020292 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Marketa ˇ Steflov ́ a, Steven Koop, Richard Elelman, Jordi Vinyoles and Cornelis Johannes Kees Van Leeuwen Governing Non-Potable Water-Reuse to Alleviate Water Stress: The Case of Sabadell, Spain Reprinted from: Water 2018 , 10 , 739, doi:10.3390/w10060739 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Luc ́ ıa Benavides, Tamara Avell ́ an, Serena Caucci, Angela Hahn, Sabrina Kirschke and Andrea M ̈ uller Assessing Sustainability of Wastewater Management Systems in a Multi-Scalar, Transdisciplinary Manner in Latin America Reprinted from: Water 2019 , 11 , 249, doi:10.3390/w11020249 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Mounia Lahmouri, J ̈ org E. Drewes and Daphne Gondhalekar Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Centralized and Decentralized Water Reclamation with Resource Recovery Strategies in Leh Town, Ladakh, India, and Potential for Their Reduction in Context of the Water–Energy–Food Nexus Reprinted from: Water 2019 , 11 , 906, doi:10.3390/w11050906 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Shuhan Zhang, Yongkun Li, Meihong Ma, Ting Song and Ruining Song Storm Water Management and Flood Control in Sponge City Construction of Beijing Reprinted from: Water 2018 , 10 , 1040, doi:10.3390/w10081040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 Bartosz Szel ą g, Adam Kiczko and Lidia D ą bek Stormwater Reservoir Sizing in Respect of Uncertainty Reprinted from: Water 2019 , 11 , 321, doi:10.3390/w11020321 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 v Salar Haghighatafshar, Jes la Cour Jansen, Henrik Aspegren and Karin J ̈ onsson Conceptualization and Schematization of Mesoscale Sustainable Drainage Systems: A Full-Scale Study Reprinted from: Water 2018 , 10 , 1041, doi:10.3390/w10081041 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Roberta Hofman-Caris, Cheryl Bertelkamp, Luuk de Waal, Tessa van den Brand, Jan Hofman, Ren ́ e van der Aa and Jan Peter van der Hoek Rainwater Harvesting for Drinking Water Production: A Sustainable and Cost-Effective Solution in The Netherlands? Reprinted from: Water 2019 , 11 , 511, doi:10.3390/w11030511 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Harry Nicklin, Anne Margot Leicher, Carel Dieperink and Kees Van Leeuwen Understanding the Costs of Inaction–An Assessment of Pluvial Flood Damages in Two European Cities Reprinted from: Water 2019 , 11 , 801, doi:10.3390/w11040801 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Peter P.J. Driessen, Dries L.T. Hegger, Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz, Helena F.M.W. van Rijswick, Ann Crabb ́ e, Corinne Larrue, Piotr Matczak, Maria Pettersson, Sally Priest, Cathy Suykens, Gerrit Thomas Raadgever and Mark Wiering Governance Strategies for Improving Flood Resilience in the Face of Climate Change Reprinted from: Water 2018 , 10 , 1595, doi:10.3390/w10111595 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Shawn Dayson Shifflett, Tammy Newcomer-Johnson, Tanner Yess and Scott Jacobs Interdisciplinary Collaboration on Green Infrastructure for Urban Watershed Management: An Ohio Case Study Reprinted from: Water 2019 , 11 , 738, doi:10.3390/w11040738 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Eva Lieberherr and Karin Ingold Actors in Water Governance: Barriers and Bridges for Coordination Reprinted from: Water 2019 , 11 , 326, doi:10.3390/w11020326 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 Jale Tosun and Lucas Leopold Aligning Climate Governance with Urban Water Management: Insights from Transnational City Networks Reprinted from: Water 2019 , 11 , 701, doi:10.3390/w11040701 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 vi About the Special Issue Editors Kees van Leeuwen is Chief Science Officer and Principal Scientist at KWR Water Research Institute (KWR) and Professor of Water Management and Urban Development at the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development of the Faculty of Geosciences at KWR Water Research Institute and Utrecht University (UU). His research focus is on sustainable urban water management & risk assessment of (drinking) water contaminants. He worked at the European Commission as Director at the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Italy. He is experienced in managing complex multi-stakeholder processes in the science-policy interface on areas of chemicals, health and the environment and has a track record of putting science into regulatory practice. Currently, he coordinates the City Blueprint Action Group of the European Innovation Partnership on Water. Jan Hofman is Professor of Water Science and Engineering in the Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of Bath (UoB) where he is Director of the campus-wide Water Innovation and Research Centre (WIRC). He is also Co-Director of the GW4 Water Security Alliance, an alliance of water centres at the Universities of Bristol, Bath, Cardiff and Exeter. Prof Hofman is Co-Director of the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Water Informatics: Science and Engineering and the NERC Centre for Doctoral Training in Freshwater Biosciences and Sustainability. He is and has been active in international leadership roles in the International Water Association (IWA) and the Water Europe (The European Technology Platform for Water). In the latter, he is currently leading the Working groups on Urban Water Pollutions, and Water Security. Peter Driessen is Vice-Dean for Research and Professor of Environmental Governance at the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development of the Faculty of Geosciences of UU. His research focus is on governance assessment in several empirical fields connected to major sustainability challenges, such as climate change mitigation and adaptation, sustainable urban development and water governance. Professor Driessen recently coordinated the EU project STAR-FLOOD, i.e., “Strengthening And Redesigning European FLOOD risk practices: Towards appropriate and resilient flood risk governance arrangements”. Jos Frijns is the Resilience Management & Governance team leader at KWR. He works on sustainability themes such as water reuse and the water-energy nexus, with a main focus on the organisational process, citizen participation and strategy and knowledge development. He also gained extensive experience as a process and project manager in (international) consultancy and research projects. Jos is co-coordinator of the EU H2020 project NextGen on water in the circular economy (2018-2022) and has recently been appointed visiting fellow at Cranfield Water Science Institute (UK). vii Preface to ”The Challenges of Water Management and Governance in Cities” Global population growth is urban growth and, therefore, most of the water-related challenges and solutions reside in cities. Unless water management and water governance processes are significantly improved within a decade or so, cities are likely to face serious and prolonged water insecurity, urban floods and/or heat stress, that may result in social instability and, ultimately, in massive migration. Aging water infrastructure, one of the most expensive infrastructures in cities, are a relevant challenge in order to address amongst other things Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6: clean water and sanitation, SDG 11: sustainable cities and communities and SDG 13: climate action. Cities and their hinterlands face many challenges. In many places, good water governance is the main bottleneck. Cities require a long-term strategy and a multilevel water governance approach. Research has shown how important it is to involve the civil society and private parties early on in this process to create success. Collaboration among cities and regions by sharing best practices for rapid implementation is crucial not only to cope with SDG6 but also with many of the other SDGs. The choice of good governance arrangements has important consequences for economic performance, for the well-being of citizens and for the quality of life in urban areas. The better governance arrangements work in coordinating policies across jurisdictions and policy fields, the better the outcomes. Rapidly-changing global conditions will make future water governance more complex than ever before in human history, and expectations are that water governance and water management will change more during the next 20 years compared to the past 100 years. To address these challenges, approaches need to be developed for a directed transition to more sustainable, resilient urban water services, including all stakeholders. In this Special Issue of Water, the focus is on practical concepts and tools for water management and water governance in cities. The contributors to this Special Issue provide a series of papers to create further awareness and solutions by presenting examples of integrated approaches, advanced water management practices and water governance strategies. This Special Issue contains 17 different contributions and includes a detailed introduction followed by 16 peer-reviewed papers. We have grouped these papers into four categories: (1) introduction to urban water challenges, (2) integrated assessment methods, (3) water management practices, and (4) water governance strategies. Kees van Leeuwen, Jan Hofman, Peter Driessen, Jos Frijns Special Issue Editors ix water Editorial The Challenges of Water Management and Governance in Cities Kees van Leeuwen 1,2, *, Jan Hofman 2 , Peter P. J. Driessen 3 and Jos Frijns 1 1 KWR Watercycle Research Institute, Groningenhaven 7, 3430 BB Nieuwegein, The Netherlands; jos.frijns@kwrwater.nl 2 Department of Chemical Engineering, Water Innovation and Research Centre, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY, UK; J.A.H.Hofman@bath.ac.uk 3 Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Princetonlaan 8a, 3508TC Utrecht, The Netherlands; p.driessen@uu.nl * Correspondence: kees.van.leeuwen@kwrwater.nl; Tel.: + 31-30-606-9617 Received: 30 May 2019; Accepted: 3 June 2019; Published: 5 June 2019 Abstract: Combined impacts of sea-level rise, river flooding, increased frequency and magnitude of extreme rainfall, heatwaves, water scarcity, water pollution, ageing or lacking infrastructures for water, wastewater and solid waste in rapidly urbanising regions in the world call for improved water management and governance capacity in cities to accelerate the transition to water-wise cities. The sixteen contributions to this Special Issue create further awareness and present solutions on integrated approaches, advanced water management practices and water governance strategies. It is concluded that cities require a long-term strategy and a multilevel water governance approach. Research has shown how important it is to involve the civil society and private parties early on in this process to create success. Collaboration among cities and regions by sharing best practices for rapid implementation are crucial to cope with nearly all Sustainable Development Goals. Keywords: water governance; urban water management; resilience; sustainable development goals 1. Introduction Global population growth is urban growth and, therefore, most of the water-related challenges and solutions can be found in cities. Unless water management and water governance processes are significantly improved within a decade or so, cities are likely to face serious and prolonged water insecurity, urban floods, and / or heat stress, which may result in social instability and, ultimately, massive migration. Aging water infrastructures are among the most expensive infrastructures in cities and a relevant challenge in order to address Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6: clean water and sanitation, SDG 11: sustainable cities and communities, and SDG 13: climate action. In fact, many of the SDGs are water-related, directly or indirectly, as shown in Figure 1. The choice of good governance arrangements has important consequences for economic performance, for the well-being of citizens, and for the quality of life in urban areas. The better governance arrangements work in coordinating policies across jurisdictions and policy fields, the better the outcomes. Rapidly-changing global conditions will make future water governance more complex than ever before in human history, and expectations are that water governance and water management will change more during the next 20 years compared to the past 100 years. To address these challenges, approaches need to be developed for a directed transition to more sustainable, resilient urban water services, including all stakeholders. In this Special Issue of Water , the focus is on practical concepts and tools for water management and water governance in cities. Sixteen peer-reviewed papers were selected for this Special Issue. We have grouped these papers into four categories: Water 2019 , 11 , 1180; doi:10.3390 / w11061180 www.mdpi.com / journal / water 1 Water 2019 , 11 , 1180 • Introduction to urban water challenges; • Integrated assessment methods; • Water management practices; and • Water governance strategies. Figure 1. The water-centric 17 Sustainable Development Goals [1]. This Special Issue starts with two policy papers of the international organisations UNESCO and OECD, presenting a summary of their most recent work on policy solutions for sustainable water resources management in urban areas. Both organisations stress the importance of integrated methodologies to assess the urban water challenges across a range of temporal and spatial scales. The following set of papers present such integrated assessment methods and their application for sustainable water resources management, water-sensitive urban design, urban water reuse, and sustainable wastewater management systems. These papers address the importance of enhancing governance capacity to implement systems for water management in cities. The third group includes papers that present water management practices to increase water security under climate change conditions. Experiences with stormwater management, urban drainage systems, rainwater harvesting, and flood risk control are analysed and lessons learned are shared. The urgency of the challenges related to urbanisation and climate change calls for adaptive water governance. In the final group of papers, multi-actor governance strategies are presented to take care of flood resilience, regional water supply and urban watershed management. The following section summarises the contributions according to this categorisation. 2 Water 2019 , 11 , 1180 2. Contributed Papers 2.1. Introduction to Urban Water Challenges Makarigakis and Jiminez-Cisneros [ 1 ] provide an overview of the global urban water challenges. To achieve water security, UNESCO is developing tools for science-based decision making, promotes international cooperation through networking, enhances the science policy interface and facilitates education and capacity development. The OECD developed a water governance indicator framework that cities can use to identify whether water governance conditions are in place and function or need improvement. The framework is composed of 36 indicators, measuring the what (policy framework), the who (institutions in charge) and the how (co-ordination tools for water policies). Romano and Akhmouch [ 2 ] report that the OECD framework can provide a global picture on the water governance system, rather than focusing on specific dimensions (e.g., transparency) or specific functions (e.g., water supply and sanitation). They advocate an institutional framework that encompasses accessible information and adequate capacity, su ffi cient funding and transparency and integrity, meaningful stakeholder engagement and coherence across sectoral policies. 2.2. Integrated Assessment Methods The second group of papers present integrated assessment methods and their application for a variety of urban water management practices. Kim et al. [ 3 ] examined the status of integrated water resources management of Seoul using the city blueprint approach. which consists of three di ff erent frameworks: (1) the trends and pressures framework, (2) the city blueprint framework and (3) the water governance capacity framework. The results indicate that nutrient recovery from wastewater, stormwater separation, and operation cost recovery of water and sanitation services are priority areas for Seoul. Furthermore, the local sense of urgency, behavioural internalisation, consumer willingness to pay and financial continuation are identified as barriers limiting Seoul’s governance capacity. Following the recent drought period, the City of Cape Town is restructuring its policy to include climate change adaptation strategies. Madonsela et al. [ 4 ] describe an evaluation of the water governance processes required to implement water-sensitive urban design in Cape Town. The analysis revealed that smart monitoring, community knowledge and experimentation with alternative water management technologies are important when considering uncertainties and complexities in the governance of urban water challenges. The transformation to widespread application of water-reuse systems requires major changes in the way water is governed. Through the systematic assessment of the city of Sabadell (Spain), Šteflov á et al. [ 5 ] identified the main barriers, opportunities and transferable lessons that can enhance governance capacity to implement systems for non-potable reuse of treated wastewater in cities. It was found that continuous learning, the availability and quality of information, the level of knowledge, and strong agents of change are the main capacity-building priorities. On the other hand, awareness, multilevel network potential and implementing capacity are already well-established. Benavides et al. [ 6 ] developed a sustainability assessment method for wastewater management in Latin America that is multi-scalar (considering several territorial scales or spatial boundaries in one same study) and multidimensional (considering the di ff erent dimension of sustainability). This approach allowed making visible issues that are not shown by single scale analysis, namely, the interconnections of the technical system (waste water treatment) with ecological systems (watershed) and social systems (public administration, community dynamics, social perception). Lahmouri et al. [ 7 ] analysed greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and compared possible water reclamation with resource recovery scenarios in the town of Leh in India: a centralised scheme, a partly centralised combined with a decentralised scheme, and a household-level approach. Potential sources of reduction of GHG emissions through sludge and biogas utilisation have been identified and 3 Water 2019 , 11 , 1180 quantified to seize their ability to mitigate the carbon footprint of the water and wastewater sector. The study showed that decentralising wastewater management has the least carbon footprint during both construction and operation phases. These results have implications for cities worldwide. 2.3. Water Management Practices This group of papers looks at urban water management practices that deal with the consequences of climate change such as increased precipitation and flood risks. Zhang et al. [ 8 ] present the concept of a sponge city in Beijing, which allows storm water to be managed with natural infiltration, natural retention and detention, and natural cleaning facilities. It is based on natural and ecological laws and provides “elasticity” in adaptation to environmental changes and response to natural disasters. One of the crucial elements in the sizing of a stormwater reservoir is determination of duration time and intensity of rainfall. The outcome is, however, a ff ected by significant uncertainty of runo ff modelling. Szelag et al. [ 9 ] analysed the e ff ect of the uncertainty of a rainfall–runo ff model, showing that the desired capacities of the stormwater reservoir were overestimated when uncertainty was neglected. Haghighatafshar et al. [ 10 ] have aligned the engineering of drainage systems with urban planning and design. They introduce a conceptual model of mesoscale sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) that complies with hydraulic, hydrologic and social–ecological functions. Implementing rainwater harvesting could contribute to the protection against damage caused by increasing precipitation frequency and intensity. Hofman-Claris et al. [ 11 ] calculated the total costs of ownership for decentralised drinking water supply from harvested rainwater. In the Netherlands, the amount of rainwater that can be harvested in the city district only covers about 50% of the demand, and the application of rainwater harvesting for drinking water production is currently not economically feasible. Nicklin et al. [12] assessed the cost of inaction in relation to pluvial flood damages in Rotterdam and Leicester, concluding that investment in flood protection is an economically beneficial approach for cities. 2.4. Water Governance Strategies The fourth group of papers present governance strategies dealing with urban water challenges through an interdisciplinary, collaborative and network approach. Based on international comparative research on flood risk governance, Driessen et al. [ 13 ] derived key governance strategies that secure the necessary capacities to resist, to absorb and recover, and to transform and adapt. Taking diversification and alignment of flood risk management approaches as an important starting point, adaptive flood risk governance also requires a delicate balancing act between legal certainty and flexibility. Strategic placement of green infrastructure has the potential to maximise water quality benefits and ecosystem services. Shi ffl ett et al. [ 14 ] examined the factors that influence a multi-stakeholder watershed approach to planning, implementing and evaluating green infrastructure techniques in Cincinnati. Green infrastructure planning benefitted from governance strategies that include stakeholder engagement and collaboration. For e ff ective water governance, the coordination of multiple actors across di ff erent institutional levels is important. In a Swiss region, Lieberherr et al. [ 15 ] observed the importance of reputational power, i.e., a higher degree of coordination took place when the actors responsible for water supply regarded potential coordination partners as important. Likewise, democratic legitimacy is important, i.e., the stronger the region’s capacity to steer, the stronger the coordination. Tosun et al. [ 16 ] looked into transnational city networks on climate change adaptation and showed how these networks embraced goals related to urban water management. The main impact of city networks is to provide a forum for validating and optimising the design of policies and measures and to exchange experiences regarding their implementation. 4 Water 2019 , 11 , 1180 3. Conclusions Water challenges are becoming ever more urgent in a world of unprecedented urbanisation and population growth, depleting resources and increasing climate change impacts. Combined impacts of sea-level rise, river flooding, increased frequency and magnitude of extreme rainfall, heatwaves, water scarcity, water pollution, ageing or lacking infrastructures for water, wastewater and solid waste in rapidly urbanising regions in the world call for improved water management and governance capacity in cities to accelerate the transition to water-wise cities. Cities and their hinterlands face many challenges. In many places, good water governance is the main bottleneck. Cities require a long-term strategy and a multilevel water governance approach. Research has shown how important it is to involve the civil society and private parties early on in this process to create success. Collaboration among cities and regions by sharing best practices for rapid implementation is crucial not only to cope with SDG6 but also with many of the other SDGs. Integrated solutions are needed, such as water-sensitive design, including rainwater harvesting, recycling, reuse, pollution prevention and other innovative urban water approaches. The contributors to this Special Issue provide a series of papers to create further awareness and solutions by presenting examples of integrated approaches, advanced water management practices and water governance strategies. Author Contributions: K.v.L. conceived and led the development of the Special Issue and this paper; J.H., P.P.J.D. and J.F. each contributed substantially to the writing of this paper. Acknowledgments: The authors of this paper, who served as guest editors of this Special Issue, wish to thank the journal editors, all authors submitting papers to this Special Issue, and the many referees who contributed to paper revision and improvement of all published papers. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Makarigakis, A.; Jimenez-Cisneros, B. UNESCO’s Contribution to Face Global Water Challenges. Water 2019 , 11 , 388. [CrossRef] 2. Romano, O.; Akhmouch, A. Water Governance in Cities: Current Trends and Future Challenges. Water 2019 , 11 , 500. [CrossRef] 3. Kim, H.; Son, J.; Lee, S.; Koop, S.; Van Leeuwen, K.; Choi, Y.; Park, J. Assessing Urban Water Management Sustainability of a Megacity: Case Study of Seoul, South Korea. Water 2018 , 10 , 682. [CrossRef] 4. Madonsela, B.; Koop, S.; van Leeuwen, K.; Carden, K. Evaluation of Water Governance Processes Required to Transition towards Water Sensitive Urban Design—An Indicator Assessment Approach for the City of Cape Town. Water 2019 , 11 , 292. [CrossRef] 5. Šteflov á , M.; Koop, S.; Elelman, R.; Vinyoles, J.; Van Leeuwen, K. Governing Non-Potable Water-Reuse to Alleviate Water Stress: The Case of Sabadell, Spain. Water 2018 , 10 , 739. [CrossRef] 6. Benavides, L.; Avell á n, T.; Caucci, S.; Hahn, A.; Kirschke, S.; Müller, A. Assessing Sustainability of Wastewater Management Systems in a Multi-Scalar, Transdisciplinary Manner in Latin America. Water 2019 , 11 , 249. [CrossRef] 7. Lahmouri, M.; Drewes, J.E.; Gondhalekar, D. Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Centralized and Decentralized Water Reclamation with Resource Recovery Strategies in Leh Town, Ladakh, India, and Potential for Their Reduction in Context of the Water–Energy–Food Nexus. Water 2019 , 11 , 906. 8. Zhang, S.; Li, Y.; Ma, M.; Song, T.; Song, R. Storm Water Management and Flood Control in Sponge City Construction of Beijing. Water 2018 , 10 , 1040. [CrossRef] 9. Szel ̨ ag, B.; Kiczko, A.; D ̨ abek, L. Stormwater Reservoir Sizing in Respect of Uncertainty. Water 2019 , 11 , 321. [CrossRef] 10. Haghighatafshar, S.; La Cour Jansen, J.; Aspegren, H.; Jönsson, K. Conceptualization and Schematization of Mesoscale Sustainable Drainage Systems: A Full-Scale Study. Water 2018 , 10 , 1041. [CrossRef] 5 Water 2019 , 11 , 1180 11. Hofman-Caris, R.; Bertelkamp, C.; de Waal, L.; van den Brand, T.; Hofman, J.; van der Aa, R.; van der Hoek, J.P. Rainwater Harvesting for Drinking Water Production: A Sustainable and Cost-E ff ective Solution in The Netherlands? Water 2019 , 11 , 511. [CrossRef] 12. Nicklin, H.; Leicher, A.M.; Dieperink, C.; van Leeuwen, K. Understanding the costs of inaction—An assessment of pluvial flood damages in two European cities. Water 2019 , 11 , 801. [CrossRef] 13. Driessen, P.; Hegger, D.; Kundzewicz, Z.; Van Rijswick, H.; Crabb é , A.; Larrue, C.; Matczak, P.; Pettersson, M.; Priest, S.; Suykens, C.; et al. Governance Strategies for Improving Flood Resilience in the Face of Climate Change. Water 2018 , 10 , 1595. [CrossRef] 14. Shi ffl ett, S.D.; Newcomer-Johnson, T.; Yess, T.; Jacobs, S. Interdisciplinary Collaboration on Green Infrastructure for Urban Watershed Management: An Ohio Case Study. Water 2019 , 11 , 738. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 15. Lieberherr, E.; Ingold, K. Actors in Water Governance: Barriers and Bridges for Coordination. Water 2019 , 11 , 326. [CrossRef] 16. Tosun, J.; Leopold, L. Aligning Climate Governance with Urban Water Management: Insights from Transnational City Networks. Water 2019 , 11 , 701. [CrossRef] © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http: // creativecommons.org / licenses / by / 4.0 / ). 6 water Perspective UNESCO’s Contribution to Face Global Water Challenges Alexandros K. Makarigakis * and Blanca Elena Jimenez-Cisneros International Hydrological Programme (IHP), Natural Sciences Sector, UNESCO, 7 Place de Fontenoy, 75007 Paris, France; bjimenezc@iingen.unam.mx * Correspondence: a.makarigakis@unesco.org; Tel.: +33-1-456-80806 Received: 21 November 2018; Accepted: 10 February 2019; Published: 23 February 2019 Abstract: The current world population of 7.6 billion is expected to reach 8.6 billion in 2030, 9.8 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 210, with roughly 83 million people being added every year. The upward trend in population size along with an improved quality of life are expected to continue, and with them the demand for water. Available water for human consumption and development remains virtually the same. Additional to the different pressures of the demand side on the available resources (offer side), climate variability and change apply further pressures to the management of the resource. Additional to the increase in evaporation due to temperature rise, climate change is responsible for more frequent and intense water related extreme events, such as floods and droughts. Anthropogenic activities often result in the contamination of the few pristine water resources and exacerbate the effects of climate change. Furthermore, they are responsible for altering the state of the environment and minimizing the ecosystem services provided. Thus, the water security of countries is compromised posing harder challenges to poor countries to address it. This compromise is taking place in a complex context of scarce and shared resources. Across the world, 153 countries share rivers, lakes and aquifers, home to 40% of the world’s current population. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is the scientific arm of the United Nations and its International Hydrological Programme (IHP) is the main vehicle for work in water sciences at an intergovernmental level. IHP VIII, IHP’s medium term strategy, aims to assist UNESCO’s Member States (MS) in achieving water security by mobilizing international cooperation to improve knowledge and innovation, strengthening the science-policy interface, and facilitating education and capacity development in order to enhance water resource management and governance. Furthermore, the organization has established an Urban Water Management Programme (UWMP) aiming at promoting sustainable water resource management in urban areas. Keywords: climate change; IHP; intergovernmental; science and technology; sustainability; UNESCO; water management; water security; Urban Water Management Programme 1. Introduction The International Hydrological Programme (IHP) is the only intergovernmental programme of the UN system devoted to the scientific, educational, cultural and capacity building aspects of hydrology for the better management of water resources. Drawing on more than four decades of experience, UNESCO-IHP fosters and consolidates cross-disciplinary and cross sectoral networks that facilitate cooperation within research and capacity building, and development of analytical tools and data sharing, primarily across national boundaries. UNESCO-IHP also enhances awareness raising of policy-makers at the national, regional and international level on the predictions and risks related to global change, including climate change and human impact. IHP is a truly intergovernmental programme, having its planning, definition of priorities, and supervision of the execution to be decided by the Intergovernmental Council. The Council Water 2019 , 11 , 388; doi:10.3390/w11020388 www.mdpi.com/journal/water 7 Water 2019 , 11 , 388 is composed of 36 UNESCO Member States elected by the General Conference of UNESCO at its ordinary sessions held every two years. Equitable geographical distribution and appropriate rotation of the representatives of the Member States are ensured in the composition of the Council. Each of UNESCO’s six electoral regions elects Member States for membership in the Council. Consequently, the Council elects a chairperson and four vice-chairpersons. These, with the chairperson of the previous Bureau as ex-officio member, constitute the Council’s Bureau. The composition of the Bureau so formed reflects an equitable geographical distribution, each representing UNESCO’s six electoral regions. The members of the Bureau remain in office until a new Bureau has been elected (It needs to be noted that following the 23rd session of IHP’s Intergovernmental Council, the role of the ex-officio member will no longer apply and Member States will elect a chairperson, a rapporteur and four vice-chairpersons). Responding to the need to have an impact on the practical management of water resources, IHP networks comprise not only the scientists but also professionals, different sectors, and the society at large, including youth, gender and children groups. There is no other international Member States’ water network with such a wide range of disciplines, sectors and stakeholders. 2. Intergovernmental Hydrological Programme: Origin and Strategy At the end of the first International Hydrological Decade (IHD, 1965–1974) the international scientific community together with governments realized that water resources often were one of the primary limiting factors for harmonious socio-economic developments in many regions of the world. Moreover, they realized that to solve problems, internationally coordinated cooperation mechanisms were necessary to enhance the knowledge base, capacity and rational management. This gave birth to the UNESCO’s IHP. IHP facilitates an inter- and transdisciplinary integrated approach to watershed and aquifer management, incorporating the social, economic and human dimensions of water resources. To advance knowledge development and dissemination, IHP uses all available experience and promotes and develops international cooperative research in hydrological and freshwater sciences. IHP was planned and implemented in six-year phases, covering themes reflecting the current priorities decided by Member States; as of 2014, the planning exercise has shifted to an eight-year cycle. The core themes of the first three phases of IHP (1971–1989) followed the same directions of the International Hydrological Decade, focusing on research and capacity building in hydrological science in its strict sense. Since then, the different phases of IHP (Figure 1) were always in advance of the major challenges the world had to face concerning water. In the nineties, more than 25 years prior to the Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals, the programme, being in its fourth phase, IHP-IV (1990–1995), identified sustainability and water resource development and management as key elements, adopting “Hydrology and Water Resources for Sustainable Development” as a core theme. Similarly, the work in the fifth phase, IHP-V (1996–2001), had “Hydrology and Water Resources Development in a Vulnerable Environment” as a core theme. 8 Water 2019 , 11 , 388 Figure 1. IHP Phases. UNESCO, being the scientific arm of the UN family is required to lead the work in water breaking scientific barriers using an out of the box approach. Recognizing the need for a paradigm shift in thinking on water from fragmented compartments of scientific inquiry to a more holistic, integrated approach, the core theme for IHP-VI (2002-2007) was defined as “Water Interactions: Systems at Risk and Social Challenges”. The same trend continued in the formulation of the IHP-VII (2008–2013), which adopted ‘Water Dependencies: Systems under Stress and Societal Responses’ as a core theme, further emphasizing the interacting dependencies of the system components and the important role of society. All these themes were well in advance of the national research agendas setting new trends on the need to develop knowledge. Following the 2000–2015 and the Millennium Development Goals, Member States came to an agreement for establishing an ambitious and interconnected development agenda of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Agenda 2030. Sustainable Development Goal 6 aims at ensuring availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. A closer look at the SDGs reveals