In March 2023, the United Nations (UN) held the first water conference since 1977. The UN 2023 Water Conference brought together more than 3000 representatives from UN Member States, intergovernmental organizations, UN entities, civil society (including international and national non-governmental organizations), and academia. The conference aimed to “unite the world for water” around the building blocks of “commitment to action, sustained and scalable implementation, and follow-up and review processes” [1]. This conference was timely, given the inextricable link between water and the fortunes of nations and the impacts of climate change, conflict, and pandemics. UN Member States and other stakeholders were invited to make voluntary commitments to catalyze action. These commitments would form the Water Action Agenda (WAA), designed to accelerate progress in the Water Action Decade (2018–2028) and the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) period (2015–2030) [2].

The intention and ambition are compelling. But did the conference and the WAA hit the mark? Did UN Member States and stakeholders rise to the challenge? Were commitments a bold response to pressing climate, economic, geopolitical, and health challenges of the 21^st century? Are water stakeholders committed to the right mix of systems strengthening, infrastructure investment, workforce capacity development, and resilience to ensure governments finally achieve the “internationally agreed water-related goals and targets, including those contained in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” [1]?

After the conference, commentators criticized the effectiveness of the WAA [3]. The Water Institute at UNC obtained access to a dataset of 764 commitments (91% of the 837 ultimately made as part of the WAA) [2]. The Water Institute analyzed these commitments to seek answers to the questions above. Of the analyzed commitments, the largest proportion (39%) were made by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). UN agencies made 6% of commitments, academic institutions made 8%, and the private sector made 9%. Only 187 (24%) were created by UN Member States. Of these, 135 (18%) were “domestic commitments” (we defined as commitments made by governments to be implemented in their own country), and only 73 (10%) were created by low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Fifty-four Member States made commitments, representing 28% of the 194 UN countries. It is striking that at a conference primarily designed to rally UN Member States, only a quarter felt compelled to make commitments. Notably, only 33 LMICs did, representing 17% of LMICs that are UN members.

Of the 73 domestic commitments made by LMICs, 7% were assessed to be measurable, time-bound, linked to monitoring and evaluation efforts, and aligned with existing policies and plans. Less than half (47%) addressed sanitation; only 8% specifically focused on hygiene.

These findings suggest that the commitment-making process was of little interest to governments. There were substantial challenges with the methodological development of the commitments, where few commitments met “SMART” (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, time-bound) criteria, and few were linked with monitoring systems and existing policies and plans. The commitments were poorly connected. There were expectations of mutual accountability that were not met, and the sheer number of commitments and their varying quality made turning them into a true “action agenda” nearly impossible.

One silver lining, however, is that LMIC governments that set commitments indicated that they were committing to improving policies, institutions, and regulations, that is, to strengthening systems rather than focusing solely on infrastructure. How can water sector actors, including donors, academia, and civil society, support countries in these efforts?