Highlights COVID-19 has exposed service gaps in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) in informal settlments in cities. The vulnerability of informal settlements to COVID-19 is not accidental, but a result of the type of cities that were built. The Sustainable Development Goals provide a framework for integrated actions in WASH benefitting other sectors. Partnerships for interventions must consider scalar dynamics with different responses taken at different governance levels.

This paper identifies opportunities from targeted and integrated sanitation action to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This is contextualised to the case of Brazil through a systematic approach applied to the sanitation sector that considers the range of infrastructure, management services and people involved in different phases of the service chain, from municipal wastewater containment to safe disposal or re-use. Articulating the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sanitation, this study analyses their links with each of the 169 SDG targets. We demonstrate that 87 targets across 16 goals require action in Brazil's sanitation sector to achieve the SDGs. Furthermore, we identify synergies between sanitation and 124 targets in four domains: basic services for resilience building, equity and

Better understanding of the range of opportunities that can be leveraged from the sustainable and inclusive management of sanitation services is required, alongside the evidence to support it. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a comprehensive framework for sustainable development broken down into 169 Targets articulated under 17 interconnected Goals. Based on a methodology developed at University College London (UCL), this study identifies linkages between sanitation and each of the 169 Targets on the basis of published evidence. We show that there are synergies between sanitation and 130 (77%) of the Targets and trade-offs for 28 (17%) of the Targets. With synergies with all the 17 Goals we identified 83 Targets (49%) that call for action in the sanitation sector. The results demonstrate the far-reaching benefits that can be unlocked from investment in sanitation, which extend beyond health and spread across sectors. This seeks to provide the evidence base to inform strategic investment in sanitation and particularly by integrating sanitation interventions into collaborative cross-sectoral development efforts. The research provides different stakeholders, including policymakers, funders, practitioners and researchers, with a framework that can be applied to context specific cases and projects. We propose a range of recommendations to policy-makers, practitioners, and researchers who seek to take this study further to support delivery of sustainable and inclusive sanitation services for all.

Global challenges such as climate change, resource scarcity and poverty must increasingly be tackled in cities. While cities can be significant contributors to climate change and resource scarcity, and face considerable risks as a consequence of these, they are also central to the solutions for these challenges. The quality of infrastructure, reliability of service provision and other economic and political conditions in urban areas shape levels of resource use by, and exposure to risks for, residents. This paperwhich introduces a special issue on resilience and resource efficiency at the city scaleintroduces these two concepts and explores the nexus between them. It uses several case studies from different contexts to illustrate the relationship between these ideas, and describes how the papers in the issue engage with them.

To better leverage opportunities arising out of sustainable and inclusive management of sanitation services there is a need for robust and comprehensive evidence of the wide-ranging benefits that sanitation can deliver. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a comprehensive framework for sustainable development broken down into 169 interconnected Targets which are articulated under 17 Goals. Based on a methodology developed at University College London (UCL), this study identifies linkages between sanitation and the 169 Targets corroborated by published evidence. We show that there are synergies between sanitation and all 17 Goals and 130 (77%) of the Targets, and trade-offs for 28 (17%) of the Targets. We identified 83 Targets (49%) that call for action in the sanitation sector. The results demonstrate the far-reaching benefits that can be unlocked from investment in sanitation, which extend beyond health and spread across sectors. The evidence base for the 17 Goals establishes links that can inform cross-sectoral action, collaborations and investment across governance levels for integrated sanitation solutions. The research provides different stakeholders with a framework that can be applied to context-specific cases and projects. We propose a range of recommendations to policy makers, practitioners and researchers who seek to take this study further to help achieve the SDGs.

No abstract

No abstract

In fragile social and economic societies, water governance systems have rarely managed to meet everyone's needs, but rather misrecognised the demand of those excluded from decision-making structures. Across regions, underlying socio-political issues have often remained unaddressed on the basis that water scarcity is primarily caused by geo-climatic conditions. Exclusionary governance is one central driver to migratory patterns along with instabilities in political regimes. It is reflected in poor service provision and tends to perpetuate injustices. Several commitments of the New Urban Agenda (NUA) set objectives of universal and equitable water provision through multi-stakeholder involvement in urban planning processes. It thereby demonstrates efforts deployed towards 'good governance' for transparent, accountable and participatory decision-making. However, several studies have pointed out the questionable role of citizens in NUA. Building on their argument, the present article reflects on exclusionary patterns that the NUA aims to tackle and the mechanisms it proposes to achieve this. This article aims to highlight how power relations in water governance produce and reproduce exclusion in access, such as through population movements. It questions how NUA envisions water governance structures based on collaboration between multiple stakeholders in different contexts, and highlights the need to scrutinise the people-centric language adopted in its commitments. With references to water politics from Latin America and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, it adopts a political ecology approach looking at questions of inclusivity for marginalised groups and discusses approaches for the active involvement of these people in water governance models.