As rapporteur of the EESC opinion on the Committee’s contribution to the UN Water Conference 2026, Paul Rübig has helped shape a vision that puts water resilience at the heart of the global agenda.
Your opinion calls for a global paradigm shift from linear water management to circular water systems and places water resilience at the heart of the UN Water Conference 2026. What concrete commitments or outcomes would you like to see governments adopt in 2026 to ensure this shift becomes reality rather than another declaration?
Governments should adopt incentives to shift from linear to circular water systems, as the opinion urges “a paradigm shift from linear water use to circular systems”. They must set global targets to improve water efficiency by at least 10% by 2030 and significantly increase reuse, supported by harmonised monitoring frameworks. Nature‑based solutions and wetlands should be recognised and deployed as critical water‑resilience infrastructure, since they “should be recognised as critical infrastructure for water resilience”.
Universal access to safe drinking water and WASH must be guaranteed as a human right, with affordability protections for vulnerable groups with skills and vocational training. Strong blended‑finance mechanisms are needed to close the global water‑investment gap and turn commitments into measurable resilience outcomes. Strengthened basin‑level governance and cross‑border cooperation should ensure coordinated, data‑driven water management worldwide.
You propose a “Water Test” for all major EU and global policies. Why is this needed, and where could it have the biggest impact?
The “Water Test” is needed because the opinion stresses that “water must be treated as a central, cross-cutting issue in all public policies” and that current policies are not coherent enough to achieve sustainable water management before 2049. A Water Test would ensure every major EU and global policy is assessed for its impact on water resources, efficiency and resilience, preventing decisions that unintentionally worsen scarcity, pollution or infrastructure stress.
The opinion also highlights that water is a public good as sun and wind and that affordability and justice must be safeguarded, making systematic policy screening essential. Its biggest impact would be in sectors with high water use or pollution—agriculture, industry, energy, raw materials, AI, Hydrogen and urban planning—where integrated management across the water‑energy‑food‑materials nexus is urgently needed. It would also strengthen climate adaptation, as the document notes that water and climate resilience are mutually reinforcing and must be addressed together.
The opinion highlights the need to mobilise public and private investment for water resilience. What are the biggest challenges in turning this ambition into bankable projects?
The biggest challenges in turning water‑resilience ambitions into bankable projects stem from structural barriers identified throughout the opinion. First, the EESC notes that “public resources alone will not be sufficient” and that private investment is held back by regulatory uncertainty, weak enabling environments and limited project‑preparation capacity, all of which make water projects harder to finance.
Second, the opinion stresses that underinvestment persists because “financial resources alone are not sufficient… without greater efficiency, improved management practices and optimisation of existing systems”, meaning many projects lack the operational foundations investors expect.
Third, water infrastructure often suffers from fragmented governance and insufficient data, making it difficult to assess risks, returns and long‑term resilience. Fourth, affordability requirements—because “water is a public good” and access must remain universal—limit the ability to rely on full cost‑recovery models, complicating private‑sector participation. Finally, the opinion highlights that the global pipeline of SDG 6 projects is too small, calling for stronger de‑risking tools, innovation support and investment‑readiness mechanisms to turn policy ambition into financeable, measurable resilience outcomes.
The opinion describes water as a public good and even calls attacks on water infrastructure a war crime. Has water finally become a strategic issue on the global political agenda?
Yes, based on the EESC opinion, water has clearly moved onto the global strategic agenda, and the document provides multiple signals of this shift.
The opinion explicitly frames water as a public good like sun and wind that must be protected, stating that “water is a public good that must be protected and defended; it should not be treated as any other commodity.” It also elevates water to a matter of peace and security, calling for the international community to “unequivocally recognise that attacks against essential water infrastructure… constitute a war crime.” This language shows that water is no longer seen only as an environmental or development issue, but as a strategic resource essential for societal resilience, geopolitical stability, and quality and quantity Impact, Risk, Option and Lifetime Assessments.
The document further argues that water must become a central, cross‑cutting priority in all public policies, and highlights its role in the triple planetary crisis, climate adaptation, economic development, and democratic stability. By linking water to security, diplomacy, investment, and global governance, the opinion makes clear that water has finally—and necessarily—become a strategic issue on the global political agenda.
