Sharply reduce water pollution and improve water quality

While reducing, reusing and recycling plastics are considered the most effective ways to manage plastic waste and minimize pollution, global plastic recycling rates remain low (only around 9% of plastic produced globally per year is recycled), and global uptake of sustainable practices across the plastics lifecycle remains limited.

To overcome these barriers, strong regulations that mandate, enable or otherwise incentivize sustainable plastic waste management strategies are needed. For example, extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a policy tool that can help disincentivize pollution by making plastic producers legally and financially responsible for mitigating the environmental impacts of their products and packaging. In certain regions, EPR policies have led to increased recycling rates.

The dataset “Plastic waste by region and end-of-life fate,” maintained by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), provides insight into plastic waste management practices over time. Although the dataset contains country-level data for only four countries (China, Canada, India and the United States), it can help us understand how plastic mismanagement in key producer and consumer countries is changing over time. Examples of mismanagement include plastic waste not being collected, waste being collected but disposed of in dumpsites or into ecosystems directly.

The share of plastic waste that is recycled per year has risen steadily since 2000, from 3.7% to 9.3% by 2019. Although this upward trend is encouraging, it still means that only about one-tenth of plastic waste is recycled per year in major economies such as China, Canada, India and the United States, far below what is needed to curb plastic pollution and move toward more sustainable practices around plastic waste.

Progress is also difficult to assess globally because reliable data on plastic recycling rates remains unavailable for many countries. As more nations begin reporting consistent plastic-waste statistics, our ability to track global progress toward sustainable plastic use will improve substantially. Although the proportion of plastic waste that is mismanaged annually has decreased by 3.5 percentage points since 2000 in the studied countries, nearly one-quarter of all plastic waste produced remained mismanaged as of 2019.

Furthermore, reliable data on plastic recycling rates is unavailable for many countries, significantly limiting our ability to assess the extent to which more sustainable plastic waste management practices are being implemented. As more countries report plastic waste data, a better understanding of global progress toward sustainable plastic use will be possible.

Monitoring and reporting wastewater discharge and effluent are fundamental to closing critical gaps in global freshwater data and enabling the sustainable management of freshwater ecosystems.

Requiring wastewater-generating actors to collect and report data, and establishing clear, standardized methodologies for water quality monitoring, are essential steps toward ensuring that measurements are consistent, comparable across geographies and actionable for decision-makers at regional and national levels. For example, comparable datasets can enable regional benchmarking, allowing countries to identify and replicate effective strategies for treating specific industrial effluents. At the same time, measures of water quality are evolving, and must account for emerging contaminants such as pharmaceuticals, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and microplastics, which pose risks to both freshwater ecosystems and public health.

There is no comprehensive global indicator tracking which countries mandate sector-specific wastewater reporting. This gap limits transparency and weakens accountability under the “polluter pays” principle. Proxy indicators can, however, provide insight into the extent of reporting on the quality of wastewater discharged into the environment. Since 2020, the global share of wastewater flows that are safely treated has increased steadily, from 50% in 2020 (based on data from 127 countries) to 56% in 2024 (across 141 countries).

While this trend is encouraging, significant variation remains between countries, and in some cases the proportion of safely treated wastewater is declining. This represents a particularly concerning trend, with greater support needed for countries with low wastewater treatment to treat municipal and industrial wastewater.

Too often, governments financially incentivize environmentally harmful behavior (e.g., overuse of fertilizer and water). Currently valued at over $700 billion per year, government support directed to the agricultural sector — which includes but is not limited to subsidies — aims to bolster farmers’ incomes and livelihoods, ensure price stability and food security, and improve environmental outcomes.

However, recent reports from United Nations agencies and the World Bank estimated that more than 60% of this government support can lead to unintended consequences that increase greenhouse gas emissions, drive biodiversity loss, distort food prices, exacerbate inequality and harm human health. Poorly designed input subsidies, for example, can incentivize the overuse of fertilizer, while output payments and market price support may require farmers to grow less efficient crops, unintentionally spurring cropland expansion into intact ecosystems.

Reforming public support for agriculture can not only help reduce unsustainable practices but also provide much-needed assistance for farmers seeking to shift to technologies, practices and approaches that minimize land-use change, greenhouse gas emissions and other harms to biodiversity. Yet the most recent data indicates that just 5.2% of agricultural subsidies supported climate or conservation objectives in 2023 across Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and other select countries that, together, account for nearly two-thirds of the world’s agricultural production. Greater adoption of such subsidies will require reforming existing policies, better incentivizing farmers to participate, and in some cases overcoming political resistance.

Financial instruments, like subsidies, tax breaks, green financing mechanisms, payments for ecosystem services and more, can be an effective tool for incentivizing practices that improve water quality. For example, government funding allowing farmers to upgrade farm infrastructure or adopt best management practices can help reduce agricultural nutrient runoff, while subsidies can encourage landowners to restore vegetation along rivers and wetlands (riparian buffer zones) to naturally filter pollutants. In addition, co-financing from governments, the private sector and other partners for cleaner industrial technologies can help reduce pollutant discharges, supporting a broader transition toward improved water quality.

However, harmful subsidies are a significant barrier to achieving sustainable freshwater management. Each year an estimated $350 billion in environmentally harmful subsidies are directed toward the water sector, with the majority disproportionately benefiting wealthier populations and only a small share reaching the poorest.

Phasing out harmful subsidies is essential to align economic incentives with freshwater conservation goals. For example, grants to replace, build and expand slurry storage facilities to prevent harmful runoff, more transparent and equitable systems of water allocation, and pricing water resources appropriately have been shown to result in more efficient use and reduced reliance on subsidies that artificially lower the cost of water.

Monitoring the share of countries phasing out harmful subsidies and adopting incentives and mandates to prevent freshwater pollution can strengthen accountability and transparency in freshwater management, while encouraging governments to identify gaps and improve policy frameworks. Publicly sharing success stories can help other countries adopt similar measures, accelerating uptake and scaling effective solutions.

However, there is currently no single, comprehensive dataset that systematically compares countries’ progress in reforming harmful subsidies and implementing positive financial instruments for freshwater management.

Phosphorus is a vital element for crop growth, playing a central role in energy transfer within and use by plants. In the form of commercial fertilizers, it has been instrumental in enhancing agricultural productivity and strengthening global food security.

Despite its importance, phosphorus uptake by individual plants is relatively low. When environmental phosphorus levels exceed natural need, significant phosphorus surpluses can occur, often resulting in loss to freshwaters, which, in turn, poses environmental risks, including water contamination and eutrophication. As natural phosphorus resources are not evenly distributed around the world, we have a significant need — and opportunity — to recycle resources containing phosphorus (e.g., manure, mining and fertilizer industry waste, and food waste) and move to a more sustainable, circular phosphorus economy. To achieve this, it is essential that the agricultural and industrial sectors increase phosphorus use efficiency (PUE) to sustainably maintain and improve soil fertility, crop yields and forage productivity.

Comprehensive PUE data is currently limited to a subset of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and select other countries. Based on this sample, between 2000 and 2020, median global PUE saw a positive upward trend from approximately 0.61 to 0.80. 

Despite this positive global trend, many developed and developing countries face phosphorus deficits. In these areas, low PUE can be a result of crops extracting more nutrients than are replenished, leading to long-term land degradation. Other countries show plateauing progress in improving PUE. Phosphorus overapplication may cause excess phosphorus to leak into surface waters through runoff or erosion, triggering eutrophication and potentially harmful algal blooms.

Data limitations significantly restrict our understanding of global trends — particularly in developing countries, where agricultural practices and challenges may differ substantially from those in OECD nations. Therefore, this data may not be representative of global PUE, warranting caution in drawing broader conclusions.

Freshwater ecosystems are affected by pollution from a wide range of sources, including heavy industry, agriculture, aquaculture, mining, and runoff and discharge of water from urban areas.

While regulatory frameworks governing these sectors have strengthened over time, particularly in developed countries, there are significant risks. These include the rerelease of legacy pollutants stored in sediments, as well as the growing presence of emerging contaminants such as pharmaceuticals, microplastics and modern pesticides. Exposure to these pollutants can harm freshwater species and the health of people and communities.

There are several legally binding international conventions and protocols intended to jointly protect human health and the environment from the adverse effects of hazardous waste and toxic chemicals, including the Basel Convention (controlling the transboundary movement and disposal of hazardous wastes), the Rotterdam Convention (establishing a prior informed consent procedure for hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade), the Stockholm Convention (controlling persistent organic pollutants), the Montreal Protocol (controlling ozone-depleting substances) and the Minamata Convention (controlling items containing mercury).

Collectively, these agreements create frameworks for implementing measures at the national level that reduce the use and improve the management of chemicals and substances. Countries can commit to adopting the recommendations outlined under each of the conventions and protocols, with nations that have made commitments to all conventions and protocols representing significant intentions to improve chemical and waste management at national scales.

As of March 2026, 141 out of 210 countries (representing 67%) are signatories to all five major chemical conventions and protocols, which together help to safeguard freshwater sources and ecosystems by controlling hazardous waste and its movement, management and disposal. To implement the necessary actions the conventions call for, it is important that the rest of the world’s countries, states and territories follow suit.

Increasing financial support to help countries implement advanced wastewater treatment technologies and repair existing infrastructure is necessary to improve global water quality and benefit biodiversity and public health more broadly. International funding for wastewater management can help to fill this gap.

According to the Climate Policy Initiative, investments in water and wastewater management in 2020 amounted to $19 billion for climate change adaptation activities, $1 billion for climate change mitigation activities and $2 billion for multiple other objectives. Significantly more funding from public and private sources will be needed to achieve universal and effective wastewater management, with some studies indicating that around $1 trillion per year is needed to deliver sustainable water management for all.

Countries with inadequate wastewater treatment infrastructure stand to benefit greatly from increased financial support. For example, many developing countries face significant challenges in managing wastewater due to outdated or insufficient treatment facilities. By channeling more funding into improving local and regional wastewater management, international organizations can help bridge the funding gaps and enable sustainable development in regions where effective wastewater treatment is critically needed.

Contrary to the Climate Policy Initiative figures, U.N. Sustainable Development Goal Indicator 6.a.1 monitors the amount of water and sanitation-related official development assistance that is part of a government-coordinated spending plan over time. In 2022, globally, $1.3 billion was committed to large water supply and sanitation systems; just over $1 billion was committed to large sanitation systems; $364 million was committed to waste management and disposal; and $220 million was committed to basic sanitation. While these investments in water, sanitation and hygiene are essential for improving freshwater quality, sustained and in some cases increased funding will be needed to achieve universal wastewater management.

There are a range of international, national and regional legally binding and nonbinding policy processes for the governance and management of pollutants. For example, water quality regulations — including stricter enforcement of wastewater treatment standards, pesticide use limits, regulations aimed at reducing agricultural runoff and nutrient pollution from farming practices, and single-use plastic bans — are widespread across the globe, and many countries are beginning to institute bans on single-use plastics. However, the effectiveness of many environmental regulations and schemes is limited by weak enforcement and, in some cases, corruption.  

Good governance is foundational to meeting international commitments and implementing national policies. Measuring government capacity to enforce regulations, however, can be quite difficult — for example, it encompasses mechanisms for coordinating across ministries and at different scales of government, leadership structures, processes for allocating funds to the local level, and institutional incentives needed to deliver conservation strategies. This indicator uses aggregate scores focused on regulatory enforcement from the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index as a proxy.

As of 2025, only 31% of 143 governments around the world boasted relatively high levels of regulatory enforcement, and this share has remained relatively stable.