World Water Week 2026: 1001fontaines Calls
for Rethinking Universal Access to Safe Drinking Water
Back from Stockholm, the 1001fontaines team shares its impressions and key highlights from the 2026 World Water Week. Centered on the theme “Water for People and Progress,” Pierre-André Térisse, Eva Leneveu and Naïa Messié met with WASH sector stakeholders and co-facilitated two sessions: one on the role of packaged water in achieving universal access to safe drinking water, and the other on the resilience of water services in the face of climate change. Here is what we took away.
Session 1 – Packaged Drinking Water: Bridge or Barrier to SDG6?
Zahid Shashoto and Rick Johnston
Organised alongside our partner Aquaya Institute, our first session brought together a high-level panel including the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the World Health Organization (WHO) — proof that packaged water, long overlooked in sector discussions, is now making its way onto the agenda of major international institutions.
And for good reason: millions of people already drink bottled or sachet water, with particularly strong growth in low- and middle-income countries.
In urban areas, this choice is primarily driven by quality and convenience expectations that intermittent piped networks only partially meet; in rural areas, it mostly compensates for a lack of infrastructure altogether. Figures from the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) further confirm that this consumer preference is well-founded: among all drinking water sources, packaged water consistently shows the highest quality.
Acknowledging this phenomenon also means engaging with its critics: its plastic footprint, its accessibility for the most vulnerable, and the risk that it diverts public authorities from their core responsibility — developing the infrastructure needed for universal access to safe drinking water. Rather than sidestepping these concerns, we addressed them head-on during our session, presenting the concrete and sustainable alternatives we are building with our partners on the ground: Teuk Saat 1001 in Cambodia and Uttaran Paani in Bangladesh — joined by Spring Health, which operates a similar model in India. These services rely on refillable 20-liter bottles in a circular model, combining home delivery with affordable pricing to reach rural areas and the most vulnerable populations. In Cambodia, for example, households classified among the poorest account for 16% of Teuk Saat 1001’s customers — a share close to their proportion of the national population (18%) (Consumer Survey Cambodia, 2024).
The session concluded with a call to push research further: cost-effectiveness, comparisons with other distribution models, and governance, regulation, and environmental sustainability.
Naïa Messié, Zahid Shashoto and Rick Johnston
Organised alongside our partner Aquaya Institute, our first session brought together a high-level panel including the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the World Health Organization (WHO) — proof that packaged water, long overlooked in sector discussions, is now making its way onto the agenda of major international institutions.
And for good reason: millions of people already drink bottled or sachet water, with particularly strong growth in low- and middle-income countries. In urban areas, this choice is primarily driven by quality and convenience expectations that intermittent piped networks only partially meet; in rural areas, it mostly compensates for a lack of infrastructure altogether. Figures from the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) further confirm that this consumer preference is well-founded: among all drinking water sources, packaged water consistently shows the highest quality.
Acknowledging this phenomenon also means engaging with its critics: its plastic footprint, its accessibility for the most vulnerable, and the risk that it diverts public authorities from their core responsibility — developing the infrastructure needed for universal access to safe drinking water. Rather than sidestepping these concerns, we addressed them head-on during our session, presenting the concrete and sustainable alternatives we are building with our partners on the ground: Teuk Saat 1001 in Cambodia and Uttaran Paani in Bangladesh — joined by Spring Health, which operates a similar model in India. These services rely on refillable 20-liter bottles in a circular model, combining home delivery with affordable pricing to reach rural areas and the most vulnerable populations. In Cambodia, for example, households classified among the poorest account for 16% of Teuk Saat 1001’s customers — a share close to their proportion of the national population (18%) (Consumer Survey Cambodia, 2024).
The session concluded with a call to push research further: cost-effectiveness, comparisons with other distribution models, and governance, regulation, and environmental sustainability.
Zahid Shashoto and Rick Johnston
Organised alongside our partner Aquaya Institute, our first session brought together a high-level panel including the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the World Health Organization (WHO) — proof that packaged water, long overlooked in sector discussions, is now making its way onto the agenda of major international institutions.
And for good reason: millions of people already drink bottled or sachet water, with particularly strong growth in low- and middle-income countries. In urban areas, this choice is primarily driven by quality and convenience expectations that intermittent piped networks only partially meet; in rural areas, it mostly compensates for a lack of infrastructure altogether. Figures from the Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) further confirm that this consumer preference is well-founded: among all drinking water sources, packaged water consistently shows the highest quality.
Acknowledging this phenomenon also means engaging with its critics: its plastic footprint, its accessibility for the most vulnerable, and the risk that it diverts public authorities from their core responsibility — developing the infrastructure needed for universal access to safe drinking water. Rather than sidestepping these concerns, we addressed them head-on during our session, presenting the concrete and sustainable alternatives we are building with our partners on the ground: Teuk Saat 1001 in Cambodia and Uttaran Paani in Bangladesh — joined by Spring Health, which operates a similar model in India. These services rely on refillable 20-liter bottles in a circular model, combining home delivery with affordable pricing to reach rural areas and the most vulnerable populations. In Cambodia, for example, households classified among the poorest account for 16% of Teuk Saat 1001’s customers — a share close to their proportion of the national population (18%) (Consumer Survey Cambodia, 2024).
The session concluded with a call to push research further: cost-effectiveness, comparisons with other distribution models, and governance, regulation, and environmental sustainability.
Session 2 – Building climate-resilient water services
Our second session focused on climate resilience — a topic that has firmly established itself as a central priority in the WASH sector. While the indicators needed to measure it are still being developed, the WHO, present at our panel, shared promising advances in this area. In time, this work will help refine needs assessments and better prioritize action. On the ground, however, the effects of climate change are already very real: flooding, drought, and deteriorating water quality are part of everyday life for water operators.
To adapt — and move beyond a purely reactive approach — understanding the risks that water services face has become essential. This is precisely the goal of the first Climate Risk Assessment (CRA) we presented during our session. Conducted in Cambodia with the Institute for Sustainable Futures (UTS), it cross-references years of operational data from Teuk Saat 1001’s network with climate projections to identify, kiosk by kiosk, the sites most exposed to risk. Far from being just another report, this analysis is already informing our investment decisions and day-to-day operations.
The question that ran through the entire panel remains: how do we finance adaptation in an already under-funded sector? Funders like Aqua for All are showing the way by directly supporting operators. But a significant gap persists: on one side, climate funds that operate at scale and still benefit water services very little; on the other, fragmented needs spread across a multitude of small actors.
Our second session focused on climate resilience — a topic that has firmly established itself as a central priority in the WASH sector. While the indicators needed to measure it are still being developed, the WHO, present at our panel, shared promising advances in this area.
In time, this work will help refine needs assessments and better prioritize action. On the ground, however, the effects of climate change are already very real: flooding, drought, and deteriorating water quality are part of everyday life for water operators.
To adapt — and move beyond a purely reactive approach — understanding the risks that water services face has become essential. This is precisely the goal of the first Climate Risk Assessment (CRA) we presented during our session. Conducted in Cambodia with the Institute for Sustainable Futures (UTS), it cross-references years of operational data from Teuk Saat 1001’s network with climate projections to identify, kiosk by kiosk, the sites most exposed to risk. Far from being just another report, this analysis is already informing our investment decisions and day-to-day operations.
The question that ran through the entire panel remains: how do we finance adaptation in an already under-funded sector? Funders like Aqua for All are showing the way by directly supporting operators. But a significant gap persists: on one side, climate funds that operate at scale and still benefit water services very little; on the other, fragmented needs spread across a multitude of small actors.
Our second session focused on climate resilience — a topic that has firmly established itself as a central priority in the WASH sector. While the indicators needed to measure it are still being developed, the WHO, present at our panel, shared promising advances in this area. In time, this work will help refine needs assessments and better prioritize action. On the ground, however, the effects of climate change are already very real: flooding, drought, and deteriorating water quality are part of everyday life for water operators.
To adapt — and move beyond a purely reactive approach — understanding the risks that water services face has become essential. This is precisely the goal of the first Climate Risk Assessment (CRA) we presented during our session. Conducted in Cambodia with the Institute for Sustainable Futures (UTS), it cross-references years of operational data from Teuk Saat 1001’s network with climate projections to identify, kiosk by kiosk, the sites most exposed to risk. Far from being just another report, this analysis is already informing our investment decisions and day-to-day operations.
The question that ran through the entire panel remains: how do we finance adaptation in an already under-funded sector? Funders like Aqua for All are showing the way by directly supporting operators. But a significant gap persists: on one side, climate funds that operate at scale and still benefit water services very little; on the other, fragmented needs spread across a multitude of small actors.
Conclusion
Throughout both sessions, the role of governments emerged as a central thread. On packaged water, it is governments that set quality standards, regulate pricing, and decide whether these services are recognized in national water access strategies. On climate resilience, they are also responsible for infrastructure planning and serve as the main channel for climate finance.
Yet stronger integration of our services into public policy is not yet a reality. This will therefore be one of our priority areas in the coming years: documenting what works on the ground and working with governments to ensure these services find their rightful place in national water strategies.
👉 Funders, institutions, operators, researchers — if these questions resonate with you, let us connect.
