Material Extra 2 Rios - WBCSD

N.B.: THIS MATERIAL HAS NOT BEEN ENDORSED BY THE WBCSD SCENARIO TEAM – It was provided by various Scenario Participants, and was not included in the final publication.

Extra Material for “2 = Rivers” Political Economy of Water............................................................................................2 Emerging Middle-Class Lifestyles.................................................................................6 Political vs. market-based models of reallocation of water in South Africa .............9 Africa ..............................................................................................................................12 Water and Energy..........................................................................................................17 More Water in Meat .......................................................................................................18 Water Wars: Is Conflict Inevitable? ............................................................................20

Extra Material for “2 = Rivers” 1


Political Economy of Water

- What is the political economy of water?

Inclusion of political considerations in economic optimization approaches that are used for water pricing reform designs.

- “Global relevance (of Political Economy issues)”

In more and more countries there are growing inequities in access to water supply. A question to ask regarding this is who suffers and who gains as a result of these inequities. What are the political and economic pressures, pulls and vested interests that exploit and perpetuate water inequities? (Reference: http://www.infochangeindia.org/agenda3_01.jsp)

Example India (Mumbai, Chennai): Slum-dwellers pay to people (often living close by) to collect water from their tap; others pay to local water mafias and elected representatives for ‘unofficial’ taps; those who cannot afford to buy water steel it from nearby housing colonies; but middle class households, which pay for water, do not get sufficient municipal water either; an overwhelming majority of citizens – including the middle class – are buying water from the cities’ fleets of tankers, which in turn buy water from farmers’ wells; with agriculture in crisis, farmers find it more profitable to sell their water than farm their lands; conflicts against industries that threaten to construct ‘private’ dams on rivers;

There is increasing evidence that global commercial interests, international aid agencies and national governments are conspiring to transform water from a public resource into a profitable enterprise. Several international corporations are waiting in the wings to expand a $ 287 billion global water market into India. There is a huge market being exploited by the packaged water industry, and it’s growing at 40% per annum. The government is increasingly dependent on aid for water infrastructure projects from institutions like the World Bank. As liberalization and free markets are the guiding principles of these agencies, they are pushing full cost recovery and reduced public control [the poor can’t afford the water after privatization]. This is shifting the flashpoint for water conflicts from agrarian basins and rural areas to the cities, where the battle is on for the control and management of municipal water supplies.

Water crises, such as the conflicts in India mentioned above, bring to the public consciousness the polarized debate over water as an economic good, a commodity that can be priced, and water as a social good, a basic need and a fundamental right. Where earlier only activists or engineers questioned water and infrastructure development policies, the middle class householder now questions the status quo, along with the slum-dweller and the environmentalist.


If there is a positive side to the water inequity it is this, that the middle class too are beginning to be aware (as prices keep rising, as the water table sinks ever lower, as the need for tanker-supplied water goes from occasional emergencies to regular to every day) that water problems connect them to the poor (who they see standing in line for hours or who have to buy water at prices far higher than they do). [Increasing social unrest because of water – see also China article in FT 27/01/06 – who has to deal with the consequences? Government more than corporations?]

http://www.infochangeindia.org/agenda3_01.jsp


- Issues around water reform / water pricing

(Reference: http://www.infochangeindia.org/agenda3_07.jsp) Water reform is a Trojan horse utilized by governments, commercial interests and international aid agencies, to turn public resources into profitable enterprises. Today’s water wars are sited in cities, rather than agrarian basins. They are being fought over the control of municipal water systems and services. Their flashpoint has shifted to “service management”, the issue of who provides, controls, and manages water supply, treatment and distribution.

Contemporary water wars are, thus, fought over institutional issues of ownership and control over municipal water systems, terms of reference, channels of finance and issues of sovereignty, all of these in turn carrying powerful repercussions for ordinary people in terms of their access to drinking water.

Proponents of privatization conceive water as an economic good that must be priced in market terms, not only to maintain the financial viability of water utilities, but to reflect the “real” value of water and to promote equity and resource sustainability. Opponents of privatization conceive water as a human right that cannot be privately owned or controlled and whose access must not depend on the ability to pay.

Current reforms of public sector of public sector water utilities must be seen against this (described above) background. The vast majority of reforms follow a standard prescription (e.g. World Bank: Infrastructure for Development). It is often a process of commodifying water; Government departments are functioning more like profit centers after reform; Creation of consumers from citizens; etc.

But nevertheless: The often highly subsidized provision of water must be re-examined in the light of the increasing pressure on water resources, especially since subsidies tend to benefit wealthier people with access to piped water and storage facilities rather than the poor who rely on mobile sources often involving private providers.

Basic water requirements need to be made affordable to all – two available instruments: cross-subsidy (from wealthier to poorer consumers; unpopular with private providers) or direct government subsidy (demands that governments cover the costs of private provision to poor consumers, at profit-making rates for the private company; many governments have declared themselves unable to meet these costs).

[Demand management through tariff reform; you can make a lot of money from scarcity and distress]

The answer does not necessarily lie in large, centralized, top-down, technologically-driven projects (local, de-centralized, people-centered alternatives – social mobilization and transformation)

Concepts of tradable water rights

What are the consequences for business? What role does business need to play in order to sustain their role in a water stressed context?


Companies will face increasing pressure from local communities. The fact of water being the most basic need for people (basic life resource), that directly affect people’s lives if it becomes scarce, is likely to cause more severe conflicts as companies experienced in similar contexts when facing opposition and resistance from local stakeholders.


Corporate Governance as well as Corporate Social Responsibility guidelines/issues

Rethinking of both, water user/consumer and supplier side, on the “price for water”?

Role of business in Public-Private-Partnerships

Pending crisis in Yemen (Reference: World Bank document “The Political Economy of Water pricing Reforms”; Project Information Document: “Yemen Rainfed Agriculture and Livestock: Rural poverty Alleviation”; Yemen Observer, Sep 10 2005: “Yemen struggle with water shortage”)

With 42% of the people living in poverty, Yemen is among the poorest countries in the world. 77% of the population is living in rural areas; Poverty is largely a rural phenomenon with almost half of the population living in rural areas is classified as poor; 83% of the poor live in rural areas.

Water contamination is the main source of water-borne diseases common in Yemen; The major reason for water pollution is the fact that only about 7 percent of the population enjoys modern and effective systems for water treatment. As a result the percentage of contaminated water nationwide stands at 90 percent. [rich people bring drinking water from the capital, where water treatment stations provide clean water; poorer residents have no choice but to drink polluted water.] Inefficient sanitation systems have contributed to an increase in the pollution of underground water. Contamination is caused by human and factory waste, particularly in the country’s major population centers.

Rural poor derive a large share of their income from agriculture or agriculture-related activities; Agriculture is one of the lead sectors for employment-generating economic growth (economic growth driven mostly by agriculture)

Historically there was a technology-driven rush (from the 1970s) to drill water wells and buy pumps, which led to an extensive expansion of irrigated farming. In the absence of any regulatory controls on drilling, these developments led to the depletion of groundwater aquifers in most water basins in the highland plateaus and in the coastal plains (which remain dry today).

Agriculture faces severe constraints to development: On-going depletion of groundwater resources means that the expansion of irrigated agriculture from deep wells is doomed [In the year 2000, annual water use was estimated at 3.4 billion cubic meters, exceeding by more than one third the supply of annual renewable freshwater (estimated at between 2.1-2.4 billion cubic meters)]

For rainfed production systems, which represent about half of the cultivated area, there are potentials to improve productivity and sustainability.

In spite of the potential for development, traditional rainfed and livestock production systems have been neglected so far. Situation is changing; GOY is acknowledging that expanding, or even maintaining existing irrigated agriculture based on ground water mining is not sustainable.

Need for better control of torrents to prevent their flow to the sea or desert has led to technocratic solutions (dams and drainages) replacing disturbing traditional rules for the allocation of this water.

Absence of adequate mechanisms to regulate groundwater extinction; Traditional customs grant a landowner the right to exploit whatever water may exist underground – depletion of groundwater as consequence; Low water use efficiency and excessive pumping of groundwater is the result of direct and indirect incentives that make water cheap and do not encourage its conservation. Measures to reduce excessive use of water resources are pressing.


Other factors, such as weak organizational capacity and lack of water rights definition and


registration systems also contribute to the problem;

Total depletion of underground (water) reserves is nearing; government has acknowledged that the desalination of seawater, once seen as a last option, is a very costly process and therefore impractical; Recognised the potential of saving rainwater that would otherwise flow into the sea

The re-allocation of water resources from agricultural to domestic use and from rural to urban is inevitable. However, no institutional mechanism exists at present to implement such a scheme, as water markets, despite their widespread proliferation, remain small and ineffective.

[In recent years the traditional mud and tree-made surface water division structures have given way in the major wadis to concrete spate drainages. In many cases, greater control over surface flows has come at the expenses of water equity, favoring upstream over downstream users. In some cases, reservoir dams have adverse impacts on water equity similar to diversion dams.]

Experiences from Irrigation water pricing in Yemen: A combination of macroeconomic tools and donor capital can achieve very rapid development of irrigation even in a poor country with very weak public sector implementation capacity; A combination of exogenous economic factors and internal economic, environmental, and political factors can lead a government to change its water pricing policy quite radically; Although there is a risk to the rural economy as irrigation water prices increase, the change can encourage farmers to invest in more efficient technology – this offers the prospect of higher incomes in the longer run. Role Yemeni government: … CAPTURED LATEST DEVELOPMENTS Water shortage is a serious problem in Yemen where the current estimated water use are by far exceeding (almost 30%) the renewable water resources. (http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/swlwpnr/reports/y_nr/z_ye/ye.htm#waterr)

http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/aglw/aquastat/countries/yemen/index.stm


http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/swlwpnr/reports/y_nr/z_ye/ye.htm

http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/aglw/aquastat/countries/yemen/index.stm


Emerging Middle-Class Lifestyles

The Shifting Water Ladder: Water-related cultural and generational shifts of expectation and practice Water is essential for human survival but it also underpins our concepts of a civilized life. Demand for water is directly and indirectly shape by evolving socio-cultural preferences, as well as population growth.

• Cultural conventions concerning cleanliness

Over recent generations, expectations of comfort, cleanliness and convenience have altered dramatically1. Showers and clothes washing are simply accepted as part of our normal, everyday lives, but this was clearly not always the case. Despite persistent and extensive variation, there is some evidence to support the view that comfort and cleanliness are subject to distinctive forms of escalation (ratchet up of demand) and standardization reach of what counts as normal is more and more encompassing). In the UK cleaning now accounts for approx. 70% domestic water energy use and demand for hot water is rising (Shove, p3). The percentage of average daily domestic water consumption per capita devoted to bathing and showering in the UK and USA is 17 and 18 per cent respectively, and, in both cases the average shower lasts 7-8 minutes. However in volumetric terms the differences are significant: 48 liters per capita in per day in USA2 of which 91% is for showering compared with 27 liters per day in UK3 (36% for showering). Regular showering, In North America and Britain, the fashion for cleanliness and its importance in signifying respectability, i.e. a moral idea, rather than any explicit association between washing, health and hygiene, manifested in the late 1700s4. This was followed by reconceptualisation as a matter of public health, rather than an affection of the elite. Soap tax was abandoned in the England in 1852, after 230 years of status as a luxury item. Between 1920-50, regular bathing by all and ‘built in’ bathrooms become entry tickets into a society that upheld the values of personal hygiene dominated theories of public health. Today, bathing is associated with pleasure and relaxation – indeed, the bathroom is becoming a sort of home de-stressing and entertainment system, with the associated range of whirlpool and spa baths, candles and aromatherapy oils.

• Dietary tastes and preferences – not just enough but right type of food, e.g. shift to meat

1 Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience – The Social Organisation of Normality, Elizabeth Shove, Berg, Oxford, 2003. 2 American Water Works Association, Residential End Uses of Water, Denver, 1999 3 Shoulder, M., Pitts, N., Thomas, F., and Hall, J (1997), Water Conservation: Shower evaluation, BRE report No. CR 164/97, Watford: Building Research Establishment.


4 Bushman, R. and C. Bushman, the Early History of the Cleanliness in America, Journal of American History, 74(4): 1213-38, 1998. Wright, L. (1960): Clean and decent: he fascinating history of the bathroom and the water closet, and of the sundry habits, fashions and accessories of the toilet, principally in Great Britain, France and America, New York: Viking Press.


It takes roughly seventy5 times more water to grow food for people than people use directly for domestic purposes. Furthermore, whist domestic water can be recycled, in theory, for reuse most of the water used to grow food is lost and cannot be reused, in a process called evapotranspiration. To produce 1 kg of cereal grains requires about 1m3 (or 1000 litres) of crop evapotranspiration. However, 1kg of meat requires much more water to produce – depending on how much feed is given to the animals versus animals that graze on rain fed pasture. One study6 estimates that a typical diet of a person from the USA requires about 5.4m3 water in the form of evapotranspiration. On the other hand a vegetarian diet with approximately the same nutritional value is responsible for the consumption of 2.6m3 per day. World meat consumption is currently growing at 4%pa, and trends of increasingly higher animal protein based diets are evident in emerging economies. For example, between 1975-2002, per capita consumption in China increased considerably: 4xMeat, 4xMilk, 8xEggs. In food terms, the water challenge is as much about what societies choose to eat, as well as about ensuring adequate amounts of food/food security for more people.

• Recreation, leisure, wellbeing and tourism In many developed and emerging economies, there have be notable lifestyle trends associated with recreation, leisure, sport and wellbeing, some of which are already creating water challenges. For example, between 1992 and 1998, Canadians reduced the amount of leisure time they devote to reading by six minutes per day and increased time spent participating in active sports by 3 minutes per day. As the concept of leisure time spreads across the world, the way in which people choose to spend that time impacts the water context. For example, consider the increasing popularity of golf and the growth in golf courses. Currently there are an estimate 30,000 golf courses and 60 million golfers worldwide. Golf courses in Europe are rising at a rate of 5% per annum, (www.eigca.org). In Spain, one quarter of the 247 golf courses in Spain are in Andalusia, one of the country’s driest regions. Between 2004-2010 an expected 100 additional courses will be built in Spain. The water requirements for new Spanish courses has created social tensions in Spanish society. Another area concerns the growth in international travel and tourism worldwide, which has been remarkable. Underpinning these trends has been demand for water infrastructure and services, in the form of water sports, golf courses, hotels and swimming pools. The construction and operation of hotels can create significant strains in already water stressed localities as well as leading to wider impacts on the local ecosystems. Chart showing increase in number of golf courses in Europe

5 Based on a domestic requirement of 50 litres per person per day and a food requirement of 3,500 litres per person per day. Rijkserban, F., (2005) in Global Crisis, Global Solutions, Cambridge, p498.


6 Renault, D. and W. Wallender, (2000): Nutritional Water Productivity and Diets, Agricultural water Management 45(2000): 275-296.


Chart showing damage to ecosystems in Eastern Caribbean by source



Political vs. market-based models of reallocation of water in South Africa [Water allocation reform as a political process]

- South Africa’s negotiated constitution (1994 and after) finds a balance between the best interests of the nation, and the rights of the individual; it also opened up enormous opportunities (and challenges) for sustainable development [Gavin Quibell: The developed nations are aiming at sustaining their development, but the developing nations are trying to develop sustainably.]

- Inadequate access to water traps people in a cycle of poverty, poor health, and pollution that they find difficult to escape without active intervention. Access to, but also availability and distribution of, water is highly skewed. The repealed water legislation of the Apartheid gave access to the resource to those who owned land. The minority white population owned approximately 87 percent of the land (this has now only slightly changed due to land reform). Poverty and the growing gap between the rich and the poor are increasingly seen as a major threat to global security and development (diseases, water wars etc.).

- Water use reform inevitably means taking from the “haves” to give to the “have-nots” [provision of safe drinking water and water for productive uses]. However taking water from existing productive users to supply emerging users has significant political, economic, and social implications. Ultimately the aim is to build the capacity to use the water productively for both the “haves” and the have-nots”. Due to the National Water Act from 1998, previously disadvantaged communities can now directly influence the way in which water is allocated. But legal entitlement to use the water is just the first step in the process and the sustainability of the water use reform process largely rests on building the capacity [range of interventions required to ensure that the recipients have not only the technical skills but also the finances and organizational structures to apply these skills] to use water productively within rural areas.

- Water resource management: Major investments have been made in infrastructure for large interbasin transfer schemes; … The current “water use” context [“water use” includes the consumptive use of water, the use of water to carry waste, the storage of water, impeding or diverting the flow in a water course, and stream flow reduction activities; refers to the surface or the groundwater resource] Apart from the inequities in access to water, there is a continuing decline in the quality and quantity of the country’s water resources.

- The impact of HIV/AIDS for assessing the impact of water use reallocation. South Africa suffers from one of the highest HIV infection rates in the world, particularly among the rural poor. This will have (already has) a profound and growing impact on the South African economy. Efforts to reduce poverty will mitigate this impact. The time taken for HIV infection to manifest as AIDS is related to the individual’s health and nutritional status. Improved food security and livelihoods among the rural poor (as a result of improved access to water resources) will affect life expectancy in rural areas, with the benefit of reducing health care costs and increasing productivity. In addition, increased mortality among the rural poor, particularly among women in the 20- to 30- year age group, may take it increasingly difficult for rural communities to effectively utilize the water allocated to them. This will be particularly true for labor-intensive community forestry or irrigation schemes.



- Water Resources Strategy [allocation planning and compulsory licensing has focused

on the consumptive use of water, and primarily on water for irrigation. The most beneficial use of water may entail the reallocation of water among users and sectors. - What is current situation of willingness of (white) farmers to cooperate?] In terms of water (re-) allocation, there are two ways, SA could go: a redistributive model or/and a economic growth model;

- The redistributive model [RDP = Reconstruction and Development Programme – A Mandela presidency focus] aims at getting the numbers right in the short term i.e. reallocating water to lots of small users.

- The economic growth model [GEAR = Macro economic growth and Development policy – A Mbeki presidency focus] aims at boosting the economy & jobs - the benefits of which will trickle down to everyone.

The redistributive model The economic growth model

Emphasizes - Numbers - Livelihood support - Social needs - Equality - Politically driven - Socio-centric

- Benefits of use - Building bee - Jobs & Income/Drop - Equity - Driven by IWRM - Techno-centric

Use of water (water use patterns are fundamentally different)

- Lots of small users - Self employed - Local schemes - Short value chains - Do not buy services - Social forces drive

allocations

- Fewer large users - Employers - Large Schemes - Long value chains - Services buyers - Market forces drive

allocations Risks - New economic reality

- Disinvestments & capital flight

- Fast speed of change - Availability of water - Legal challenges - GDP too low

- Growth >6% needed - Political shifts

- Slow speed of change - Skills and resources - HIV / AIDS - International events

- Which way is water allocation reform going? [Minister Sonjica of Water Affairs and Forestry] Access to water is still a predominantly white (and male) privilege. Need to ensure that water can be made available to black entrepreneurs, to women, to the disabled. Need to harness the developmental potential of all people in SA. Need to make water available in a way that will sustain and grow the first economy while allowing the second economy users to develop into the first economy.

- Water allocation reform tries to find a balance between the approaches – at the current stage implementation seems to favor the economic growth model.


- Advocating a Middle path that takes the water that is presently being used inefficiently and reallocates this using the distributive model using general authorizations specifically for black people (i.e. they can use small quantities of water without the need for a license). The rest of the water will be authorized by licenses, which will consider


the most beneficial use of water in the public interest … i.e. the economic growth model.

- Reallocations are driven by the compulsory licensing agreement. Compulsory licensing is a process where you put all the water back; set aside some for the reserve and international requirements; then divide the rest up more fairly in the best interests of all South Africans. [CLA used as a tool for reallocation in catchments and water management areas that are likely to suffer water stress.]

- General Authorizations link poor communities with good opportunities for productive water use, with water. [General Authorizations conditionally allow limited water use of larger volumes without a license.] Step 1 – Maximize the available water Step 2 – Look for good opportunities Step 3 – Generally authorize some uses Step 4 – Call for license applications for the remainder



Africa

THE NEXT TWENTY YEARS OF WATER IN AFRICA Global warming will have its most significant impacts on the world’s poorest nations. This is perhaps most evident in Africa, which not only has the world’s poorest nations, but is already experiencing severe drought cycles. Already many Africans are suffering the impacts of reduced food security and unsafe water supplies brought about by an unstable and changing climate particularly in countries with poor water related infrastructure and institutional management. While the growing number of climate related disasters might see an increased ability in the countries of the north to understand, predict and manage the impacts of global warming, this is unlikely to be the case for most African countries. In the face of increasing impacts of global warming, reduced rainfall and declining food security many African nations are likely to increasingly see themselves as the victim of a global problem not of their own making. This will not only be seen as a major humanitarian disaster, but may be increasingly perceived to be a growing threat to international security. This, together with a growing social and environmental conscience in the northern hemisphere countries, perhaps precipitated by a better understanding of our impacts on the global environment, will create a more conducive political environment and social acceptability for more proactive support for helping Africa address these problems. We are already seeing a growing commitment to write off accumulated third world debt and an increase in foreign aid, especially in Africa. The UK’s Commission for Africa has already highlighted a number of interventions necessary from developed nations to promote trade with, and investment in, Africa. Africa is already reaping the benefits of increased support aimed at realizing the millennium development goals (MDGs). Africa’s own NEPAD process has also given a greater commitment to democracy, good governance and sound economic growth, underpinned by a peer review mechanism. These initiatives, perhaps more than ever before, have the potential to place Africa on the right path to realizing the MDGs. However, Africa’s track record is not good. In the 1960’s prospects for Africa were considered to be the best in the developing world, and between 1960 and 1973 productivity was higher in Africa than in South East Asia7. However, after the first oil crisis, productivity in Africa declined while that in SE Asia grew significantly. Table 1 shows that the major economic and social indicators of development in sub-Saharan Africa have declined substantially when compared to other developing regions, this in spite of much higher aid per capita flowing to African countries. Table 1: Economic and social indicators of development for the main developing regions


7 DFID 2000, Briefing Note: Can Africa halve poverty by 2015? Myths and reality


Source: World Bank data quoted in DFID 2000, Can Africa halve poverty by 2015? Myths and reality

Measure

Sub-Saharan

Africa South Asia

East Asia

Latin America

Gini Index index 45.9 31.2 40.6 51.0 GDP/cap 1970 1997

$ $

525 336

239 449

157 715

1216 1890

Dom. Investment/cap 1970 1997

$ $

80 73

48

105

37

252

367 504

FDI per capita 1970 1997

$ $

1.49 4.61

0.10 3.40

0.24

35.71

3.86

120.09 Aid per capita 1997

$

26

3

4

13

Output per worker 1960-1973 1973-1994

Ratio Ratio

1.9 -0.6

1.8 2.6

na na

na na

Human Development Index 1995

%

39.8

48.2

63.9

67.8

Life expectancy 1980 1997

Years Years

47.0 51.3

53.8 62.5

64.5 68.4

64.8 69.7

Infant mortality 1980 1997

/1000 /1000

119.0 92.9

119.8 70.5

56.0 37.8

59.5 31.8

Mean years of school 1960 1990

Years Years

1.5 2.4

1.5 3.4

3.4 6.2

3.4 5.2

Access to safe water 1996

%

45

81

77

75

These data would suggest that, while the investments and commitments to meet the MDGs in Africa may increase over the next 20 years, without concomitant economic growth and inward foreign investment these goals will not be sustainable. However, the ability of African nations to sustain the economic growth will be compromised by soaring energy costs, droughts, and the increased social and economic costs of the HIV pandemic. Potentially trapping many African countries in a poverty cycle. Within this context, the sustainable development paradigm holds many more challenges for African nations. While developed countries, and some developing nations, may wish to “sustain their development”, African nations must aim at “developing sustainably”.


Clearly, developing sustianably in the light of the data presented in Table 1, means that Africa cannot afford business as usual approaches, and radical shifts in governance,


economic growth policies, and poverty alleviation strategies will have to be engaged. The approaches outlined in the NEPAD process demonstrate a clear commitment to tackle these issues from many African countries. African governments, however, also recognize the inherent risks associated with these shifts. Within an Integrated Water Resources Management paradigm, shifts in the way scare water resources may be allocated to address poverty could occur in two ways. Governments may opt for “economic growth”, or “distributive” strategies. The economic growth model emphasizes the distribution of the benefits of water use by job creation, and greater contributions to the broader economy. Poverty alleviation occurs as the benefits of the water use trickle down to the poor. The distributive model emphasizes the distribution of water to large numbers of rural poor people to improve food security. Poverty alleviation occurs by direct livelihoods support to the poorest of Africa’s people. The former approach tends to allocate water via large water supply schemes, may have a “blue water”8 focus, and the value chains to products produced from water use would be longer. Water use in this model contributes to a more diverse and hence stable economy and to GDP growth. Water shortages and food security in this model can be accommodated by importing food (and hence virtual water). The distributive model supports large numbers of small users, perhaps as “green water”3 users. Water supply schemes for irrigation purposes may be more localised, and value chains tend to be shorter, and the contribution of the water user to the broader economy may be limited. This model would aim at increasing food security for the poor as the primary means of tackling poverty. However, as small scale water users have little buffer to accommodate reduced water availability. Intuitivsustaithe tricand hglobalpoliticHIV/Atrickle Alternreduceconcecope wAfrica

14

8 After Green harves

The distributive and economic growth models perhaps have a parallel inthe potable water supply and sanitation sector, where governments mayopt for cautious implementation ensuring the sustainability of supplysystems before they are installed (the economic growth approach), or adistributive approach aimed at getting the numbers right in the shortterm.

ely, therefore, western thinking may support the economic growth model as a more nable option. There are, however, considerable risks to this approach. Most importantly, kle down of wealth created by the economic growth model depends on sustained growth,

ence on global factors outside of the control of poor African nations. External factors like energy costs, natural disasters and geopolitical instability, as well as internal factors like al instability (promoted by a growing gap between the “haves” and the “have nots”), the IDS pandemic and a lack of skills and resources can slow economic growth, limiting the down of benefits to the poorest.

atively, a low GDP for many African countries can limit the ability of countries to adapt to d water availability. Tony Allen in 2002 and Turton and Ohlsson in 1999, introduced the

pt of adaptively security for water stress. As the GDP of a nation increases, so the ability to ith water stress increases. Figure 1 presents the relative water availability and GDP for

n nations using this concept.

Extra Material for “2 = Rivers”

Falkenmark 1996, Blue water is the water abstracted from groundwater or from rivers and lakes, water is that water lost to the system via evapotranspiration from plants, and may include rainfall ting and dry land cropping.


Figure 1: Concept, Allen 2002 and Ohlsson and Turton 1999. Data World Bank from Ashton

2005 presentation to an IWRM course. Figure 1 shows that the majority of African countries remain adaptively and water insecure. This makes a strong argument for using limited water resources to promote broader economic growth. Clearly, therefore, African nations will have to increasingly balance the use of their scarce water resources to promote economic growth, as well as to support the distribution of water to support livelihoods improvements and increased food security for large numbers of their rural poor. So where will water in Africa be in 20 years? There is a clear promise from developed nations to increase aid and support to Africa, and more importantly to couple this with commitments to support the economic growth necessary to make investments in realizing the MDGs sustainable. This may see the gradual lowering of trade barriers, as well as more incentives to invest in Africa. This movement may strengthen with a growing social and environmental conscience from ordinary citizens in developed nations. This together with assurances of good governance and democracy inherent in the NEPAD process is likely to see better opportunities for African countries to break the shackles of poverty. We are already seeing the signs of this growth. Africa is therefore likely to see increased access to safe water supplies and sanitation, as well as the growth of smaller water using enterprises. However, in order to stave off the risks associated with an increasingly variable climate, African nations are going to have to invest increasingly in larger water using schemes that support a broader and more diverse economy. These investments will help ensure that water use increasingly contributes to growing GDP.


This will be a difficult tightrope for African nations to walk, and the risks of social and political instability remain high, but there are progressively more optimistic signs that it will be possible to achieve these goals.


Further comments

• Africa has got more aid per person than SE Asia and S America over the last 15-20 years, but while other areas have increased productivity, life expectancy etc., human development indicators show Africa is steadily getting worse off. **Assumption that refers to total aid, which in the past decade has shifted from infrastructure to services (education, health, etc.)***

• Africa has experienced enormous capital flight, and virtually no inward investments AND African countries rarely sustain any benefits that could come from international development aid

• Given the political and social instability in many African countries, a lack of foreign business investment is not surprising.

• The two are linked, and once in the downward spiral, proactive corrective action is required.

• But proactive corrective action may not follow traditional economic growth principles – given the time taken fro ‘trickle down’ to unlock entrenched inequalities – instead economic development needs to be more politically and socially driven.

• Many Africa countries lack the capacity (beyond money, includes skills, infrastructure, governance capability) to manage their water challenges today and the prospect of climate change induced stress and climatic variability will further undermine the ability of many African countries to meet basic survival needs for their growing populations.

IRG Report on Global Water Challenges…highlights imbalances in flow of water aid and needs ……

“Currently none of the top ten recipients of water aid correspond with the countries identified as being in most need.The majority of the countries in most need are in sub-Saharan Africa, … The biggest recipients of water aid are lower-middle income countries. Resources therefore need to be refocusedon sub-Saharan Africa and other low income countries.”



Water and Energy

Water use for industries (mostly for energy production) accounts for 47% of total water withdrawals in industrialized countries, ahead of agriculture (37%). In developing countries, however, water is still primarily used for the basic need of food production. Water use for agriculture represents as much as 87% of total water withdrawals.

Coal, the most abundant fossil fuel, currently accounts for 52% of U.S. electricity

generation and each kWh generated from coal requires 3.3 gallons of water.

Electricity production from fossil fuels and nuclear energy accounts for 39% of all freshwater withdrawals in the United States, with 71% of that going to fossil fuel electricity generation alone.

The energy consumed globally for delivering water approximately equals the total

amount of energy used in Japan and Taiwan combined, in the order of 7% of total world consumption.

Between 2 and 3% of the world’s energy consumption is used to pump and treat water

for urban residents and industry.

In the United States, the energy that is required for treatment and delivery of water accounts for as much as 80% of its cost.

The total electricity consumption of the water and wastewater sectors will grow globally

by a predicted 33% in the next 20 years. WATER CONSUMPTION (through evaporative loss)--CONVENTIONAL POWER PLANTS (California Energy Commission)

Technology gallons/kWh liters/kWh Nuclear 0.62 2.30 Coal 0.49 1.90

Oil 0.43 1.60 Combined Cycle 0.25 0.95



More Water in Meat ”Hard To Swallow (Climate Change) By Jonathan Porritt The Guardian January 4, 2006 Analysis Of all the seasonal homilies about "green" Christmases and "sustainable" new year pledges - an oxymoron if ever I've heard one - only one stuck in my mind: each of us could make a bigger contribution to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by becoming a vegan than by converting to an eco-friendly car. Researchers at the University of Chicago have calculated the relative carbon intensity of a standard vegan diet in comparison to a US-style carnivorous diet, all the way through from production to processing to distribution to cooking and consumption. An average burger man (that is, not the outsize variety) emits the equivalent of 1.5 tonnes more CO 2 every year than the standard vegan. By comparison, were you to trade in your conventional gas-guzzler for a state of the art Prius hybrid, your CO 2 savings would amount to little more than one tonne per year. This may come as a bit of a shock to climate change campaigners. "Stop eating meat" is unlikely to be the favourite slogan of the new Stop Climate Chaos coalition. Even "eat less meat" might not go down too well, even though Compassion in World Farming has produced an utterly compelling explanation - in their report, Global Benefits of Eating Less Meat - of why this really is the way forward. The basic rule of thumb is that it takes 2kg of feed to produce every kilogram of chicken, 4kg for pork, and at least 7kg for beef. The more meat we eat, the more grain, soya and other feedstuffs we need. So when we hear that the total global meat demand is expected to grow from 209m tones in 1997 to around 327m tonnes in 2020, what we have to hold in our mind is all the extra hectares of land required, all the extra water consumed, the extra energy burned, and the extra chemicals applied to grow the requisite amount of feed to produce 327m tonnes of meat. Only a tiny proportion of those recently alerted to the threat of climate change would make any connection whatsoever between this and the food they eat. These are two entirely different zones of environmental reality – and getting one's head around climate change is proving to be enough of a challenge anyway. This year will undoubtedly be looked back on as the year when mass awareness at last kicked in - largely because it's been such a shocking year in terms both of disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and of the spate of new research findings about accelerating impacts on both the Arctic and the Antarctic, on the Russian and Canadian permafrost, on the acidification of the oceans, and so on. It was also the year when the debate about how much oil is left in the ground bubbled up again, with oil trading at more than $60 a barrel for far longer than analysts imagined possible. The Goldman Sachs prediction that oil could reach $100 a barrel within the next decade didn't seem quite so daft any more. The relatively imminent prospect of finding ourselves living in a carbon-constrained oil-scarce world is, at long last, beginning to impact on government policymakers. But policymakers in the agricultural wing of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) may well be the last to wake up to this - even though the climate change team is only just down the corridor. My Christmas reading included a brave new Vision for the common agricultural policy (CAP), produced by Treasury and Defra, presumably as part of their campaign to see off Jacques Chirac and his legions of French peasants. All in all, it's quite a good read, but the section on food security (defined as "an individual's access to enough food to maintain a healthy and active life") is astonishingly complacent.


As far as our government is concerned, it apparently doesn't matter any longer where the food we buy comes from, as long as it meets minimum food safety and animal welfare standards. If our big retailers can source their produce from elsewhere in the world at lower costs than UK producers, what's the problem? In a global economy, where food is treated just like any other traded commodity, we may still need farmers (for the time being at least), but we don't necessarily need them based in the UK itself. Many people believe the government has got this one badly wrong. Food isn't "just another commodity", it is the foundation of personal wellbeing and is inextricably interwoven into a nation's culture, character and land use. In that regard, farming and food production embody a set of skills and capabilities on which the long-term security of any nation still ultimately depends.


To demonstrate this, just add a few more geopolitical variables to the pot - on top of climate change and declining availability of oil. Just before Christmas, we heard that the Chinese economy grew by 16.5% last year - almost twice as fast as official figures. Oil imports have soared correspondingly, and will keep on rising. China is no longer self-sufficient in food. As meat consumption rockets (from 4kg per person 40 years ago to nearly 60kg today), so too do imports of grain and soya. Competition for land and water has never been fiercer; protests and riots over land use are now commonplace. At least China's population isn't growing much any longer, unlike that of India and many other countries. We are on track for a world population of around 9bn by the middle of this century - 6bn more than in 1950. Massive increases in food production and in average yields have just about kept up with population growth so far, but at huge cost to the environment. And there are few agricultural experts who think we can any longer sustain that kind of increased productivity. Then start mixing them all together. When oil starts trading at $100 a barrel, what happens to food production systems that are entirely dependent on cheap fossil fuels? How secure - let alone economically viable – will today's global supply chains prove to be when the worst effects of climate change begin to impact on food production all around the world? What will be the impact on food production of more and more governments using more and more of their land for energy crops and biofuels in order to address the problem of climate change? Modelling these variables is a policy-maker's worst nightmare, but they absolutely cannot be ignored. Unfortunately, they barely feature in Defra's new vision, which seeks to persuade its readers that there is no alternative but to accelerate the globalisation of the food economy. "Complete self-sufficiency" is summarily dismissed, as if anyone is out there arguing for complete self-sufficiency anyway. What they are arguing for might be termed "cost-effective self-reliance", as a hedge against the growing threat of widespread ecological and social disruption – food security seen in terms of land use, quality, sustainability and food safety, not just temporary availability and access. And that means policies that do not leave our farmers gratuitously disadvantaged by overseas producers who care little for the state of the environment or animal welfare; policies that actively promote local sourcing, obliging our retailers to be as smart and creative about local supply chains as they are about global supply chains; policies that set out systematically to reduce carbon intensity in food production and distribution; policies that build on the excellent work already achieved through the public sector food procurement initiative, and the development of new agri-environment measures. It also means a rather different vision, acknowledging up front that a sustainable future for the UK depends on securing a thriving rural economy, and that this, in turn, depends on keeping sustainable food production absolutely at the heart of the rural economy. This may come as a bit of a surprise to some conservationists today, but the worst possible outcome for the British countryside and the global environment would be further reform of the CAP - ostensibly in the name of "more environment-friendly farming" - that resulted in more and more farmers going out of business. Which is precisely why we need a much more intelligent debate about food security than the one we're getting at the moment. Jonathon Porritt is programme director of Forum for the Future and chairman of the UK Sustainable Development Commission. His book, Capitalism As If The World Matters, is published by Earthscan Hardback. He will be speaking, with Ken Livingstone, Monty Don, Caroline Lucas and others, at the Soil Association's 60th anniversary conference in London on Friday and Saturday. Further information at: www.soilassociation.org/conference

Copyright 2006 The Guardian”


http://www.soilassociation.org/conference


Water Wars: Is Conflict Inevitable? According to Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute, water resources have rarely, if ever, been the sole source for conflict. Nonetheless, water has played a role in numerous conflicts and holds an important place in the security of nations. After analyzing history of water in conflicts, Gleick offers the following as types of conflict relating to water: Basis of Conflict

• Control of water resources - (state and non-state actors): where water supplies or access to water is at the root of tensions.

• Military tool - (state actors): where water resources, or water systems themselves, are used by a nation or state as a weapon during a military action.

• Political tool - (state and non-state actors): where water resources, or water systems themselves, are used by a nation, state, or non-state actor for a political goal.

• Terrorism - (non-state actors): where water resources, or water systems, are either targets or tools of violence or coercion by non-state actors.

• Military target - (state actors): where water resource systems are targets of military actions by nations or states.

• Development disputes - (state and non-state actors): where water resources or water systems are a major source of contention and dispute in the context of economic and social development.

Mark de Villers, author of water wars offers this point of view: "Water supplies are needed for all aspects of national activity, including the production and use of military power, and rich countries are as dependent on water as poor countries are ... Moreover, about 40 percent of the world's population lives in the 250 river basins shared by more than one country ... But ... wars over river water between upstream and downstream neighbors are likely only in a narrow set of circumstances. The downstream country must be highly dependent on the water for its national well-being; the upstream country must be able to restrict the river's flow; there must be a history of antagonism between the two countries; and, most important, the downstream country must be militarily much stronger than the upstream country." While Frederick Frey, of U Penn, comments: "Water has four primary characteristics of political importance: extreme importance, scarcity, maldistribution, and being shared. These make internecine conflict over water more likely than similar conflicts over other resources. Moreover, tendencies towards water conflicts are exacerbated by rampant population growth and water-wasteful economic development. A national and international 'power shortage,' in the sense of an inability to control these two trends, makes the problem even more alarming."



“Global Security Brief #5: Water Can Be a Pathway to Peace, Not War” By Aaron T. Wolf, Annika Kramer, Alexander Carius, and Geoffrey D. Dabelko June 2005 “Water wars are coming!” the newspaper headlines scream. It seems obvious—rivalries over water have been the source of disputes since humans settled down to cultivate food. Even our language reflects these ancient roots: “rivalry” comes from the Latin rivalis, or “one using the same river as another.” Countries or provinces bordering the same river (known as “riparians”) are often rivals for the water they share. As the number of international river basins (and impact of water scarcity) has grown so do the warnings that these countries will take up arms to ensure their access to water. In 1995, for example, World Bank Vice President Ismail Serageldin claimed that “the wars of the next century will be about water.” These apocalyptic warnings fly in the face of history: no nations have gone to war specifically over water resources for thousands of years. International water disputes—even among fierce enemies—are resolved peacefully, even as conflicts erupt over other issues. In fact, instances of cooperation between riparian nations outnumbered conflicts by more than two to one between 1945 and 1999. Why? Because water is so important, nations cannot afford to fight over it. Instead, water fuels greater interdependence. By coming together to jointly manage their shared water resources, countries build trust and prevent conflict. Water can be a negotiating tool, too: it can offer a communication lifeline connecting countries in the midst of crisis. Thus, by crying “water wars,” doomsayers ignore a promising way to help prevent war: cooperative water resources management. Of course, people compete—sometime violently—for water. Within a nation, users—farmers, hydroelectric dams, recreational users, environmentalists—are often at odds, and the probability of a mutually acceptable solution falls as the number of stakeholders rises. Water is never the single—and hardly ever the major—cause of conflict. But it can exacerbate existing tensions. History is littered with examples of violent water conflicts: just as Californian farmers bombed pipelines moving water from Owens Valley to Los Angeles in the early 1900s, Chinese farmers in Shandong clashed with police in 2000 to protest government plans to divert irrigation water to cities and industries. But these conflicts usually break out within nations. International rivers are a different story. The world’s 263 international river basins cover 45.3 percent of Earth’s land surface, host about 40 percent of the world’s population, and account for approximately 60 percent of global river flow. And the number is growing, largely due to the “internationalization” of basins through political changes like the breakup of the Soviet Union, as well as improved mapping technology. Strikingly, territory in 145 nations falls within international basins, and 33 countries are located almost entirely within these basins. As many as 17 countries share one river basin, the Danube. Contrary to received wisdom, evidence proves this interdependence does not lead to war. Researchers at Oregon State University compiled a dataset of every reported interaction (conflictive or cooperative) between two or more nations that was driven by water in the last half century. They found that the rate of cooperation overwhelms the incidence of acute conflict. In the last 50 years, only 37 disputes involved violence, and 30 of those occurred between Israel and one of its neighbors. Outside of the Middle East, researchers found only 5 violent events while 157 treaties were negotiated and signed. The total number of water-related events between nations also favors cooperation: the 1,228 cooperative events dwarf the 507 conflict-related events. Despite the fiery rhetoric of politicians—aimed more often at their own constituencies than at the enemy—most actions taken over water are mild. Of all the events, 62 percent are verbal, and more than two-thirds of these were not official statements.


Simply put, water is a greater pathway to peace than conflict in the world’s international river basins. International cooperation around water has a long and successful history; some of the world’s most vociferous enemies have negotiated water agreements. The institutions they have created are resilient, even when relations are strained. The Mekong Committee, for example, established by


Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Viet Nam in 1957, exchanged data and information on the river basin throughout the Viet Nam War. Israel and Jordan held secret “picnic table” talks to manage the Jordan River since 1953, even though they were officially at war from 1948 until the 1994 treaty. The Indus River Commission survived two major wars between India and Pakistan. And all 10 Nile Basin riparian countries are currently involved in senior government–level negotiations to develop the basin cooperatively, despite the verbal battles conducted in the media. Riparians will endure such tough, protracted negotiations to ensure access to this essential resource and its economic and social benefits. Southern African countries signed a number of river basin agreements while the region was embroiled in a series of wars in the 1970s and 1980s, including the “people’s war” in South Africa and civil wars in Mozambique and Angola. These complex negotiations produced rare moments of peaceful cooperation. Now that most of the wars and the apartheid era have ended, water management forms one of the foundations for cooperation in the region, producing one of the first protocols signed within the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Today, more than ever, it is time to stop propagating threats of “water wars” and aggressively pursue a water peacemaking strategy. Why? ► “Water wars” warnings force the military and other security groups to take over negotiations and push out development partners, like aid agencies and international financial institutions. ► Water management offers an avenue for peaceful dialogue between nations, even when combatants are fighting over other issues. ► Water management builds bridges between nations, some with little experience negotiating with each other, such as the countries of the former Soviet Union. ► Water cooperation forges people-to-people or expert-to-expert connections, as demonstrated by the transboundary water and sanitation projects Friends of the Earth Middle East conducts in Israel, Jordan, and Palestine. ► A water peacemaking strategy can create shared regional identities and institutionalize cooperation on issues larger than water, as exemplified by the formation of SADC in post-apartheid southern Africa. Good governance—the lack of corruption—is the basic foundation for the success of any agreement. Obviously, money is also a big challenge. But good governance and money are not enough. Several policy initiatives could help peacemakers use water to build peace:

1. Identify and utilize more experienced facilitators who are perceived as truly neutral. The World Bank’s success facilitating the Nile Basin Initiative suggests they have skills worth replicating in other basins.

2. Be willing to support a long process that might not produce quick or easily measurable results. Sweden’s 20-year commitment to Africa’s Great Lakes region is a model to emulate. Typical project cycles—often governed by shifting government administrations or political trends—are not long enough.

3. Ensure that the riparians themselves drive the process. Riparian nations require funders and facilitators who do not dominate the process and claim all the glory. Strengthening less powerful riparians’ negotiating skills can help prevent disputes, as can strengthening the capacity of excluded, marginalized, or weaker groups to articulate their interests.

4. Strengthen water resource management. Capacity building—to generate and analyze data, develop sustainable water management plans, use conflict resolution techniques, or encourage stakeholder participation—should target water management institutions, local



nongovernmental organizations, water users’ associations, and religious groups.

5. Balance the benefits of closed-door, high-level negotiations with the benefits of including all stakeholders—NGOs, farmers, indigenous groups—throughout the process. Preventing severe conflicts requires informing or explicitly consulting all relevant stakeholders before making management decisions. Without such extensive and regular public participation, stakeholders might reject projects out of hand.

Water management is, by definition, conflict management. For all the twenty-first century wizardry—dynamic modeling, remote sensing, geographic information systems, desalination, biotechnology, or demand management—and the new-found concern with globalization and privatization, the crux of water disputes is still little more than opening a diversion gate or garbage floating downstream. Obviously, there are no guarantees that the future will look like the past; water and conflict are undergoing slow but steady changes. An unprecedented number of people lack access to a safe, stable supply of water. Two to five million people die each year from water-related illness. Water use is shifting to less traditional sources such as deep fossil aquifers and wastewater reclamation. Conflict, too, is becoming less traditional, driven increasingly by internal or local pressures or, more subtly, by poverty and instability. These changes suggest that tomorrow’s water disputes may look very different from today’s. No matter what the future holds, we do not need violent conflict to prove water is a matter of life and death. Water—being international, indispensable, and emotional—can serve as a cornerstone for confidence building and a potential entry point for peace. More research could help identify exactly how water best contributes to cooperation. With this, cooperative water resources management could be used more effectively to head off conflict and to support sustainable peace among nations. About the authors: Aaron T. Wolf is Associate Professor of Geography in the Department of Geosciences at Oregon State University and Director of the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database. Annika Kramer is Research Fellow and Alexander Carius is Director of Adelphi Research in Berlin. Geoffrey D. Dabelko is the Director of the Environmental Change and Security Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C.


Material Extra 2 Rios - WBCSD

Documents

Transcript of Material Extra 2 Rios - WBCSD