This section is based on Stockholm International Water Institute’s conclusions and what we consider as the key threads that emerged from the week. These overarching conclusions are also based on the summary reports from workshops and seminars and the rapporteur theme reports (see next section of this publication). Our interpretation of issues raised from over 100 substantive sessions are intended to provide meaningful messages for both participants who were at the week and other stakeholders unable to attend. The overall aim is to maintain a dialogue beyond the intense and fruitful discussions during the World Water Week itself.
Access to water
Water scarcity, poverty in its multiple manifestations, conflicts and political circumstances influence people’s ability to access water, particularly for the daily requirements for drinking water and household needs. Water may be available in aquifers, in nearby streams or even in village ponds, but due to technical, economic, cultural and other reasons many people may not have access to water sources or to the services that are organised by the public sector or other providers. Not having access to the most basic necessity of life is causing dramatic and detrimental consequences for the people concerned. Detailed statistical accounts and a large number of illustrated cases of people affected from a lack of access to drinking and household water, are repeatedly presented in literature and media. It is, indeed, mindboggling that in spite of repeated high level commitments and the fact that there are few, if any, political disagreements, the efforts to substantially reduce the plight of the 1.1 billion who lack access to household water are not enough. It is essential to recognise that it is not only the 1.1 billion who are affected. Families and relatives of those who are affected, their farms or work places and society at large also bear the brunt of this lingering tragedy. For various reasons, there is less evidence of these wider costs to society.
The purpose of the 2009 World Water Week was to link the issue of access to the wider picture. If access is improved for those who today are deprived, it is not only those that are served that will reap the benefits, but also the community, the economy and the development of society as a whole. In other words, it would serve the common good. The word “common” features in many prominent reports; “our common future” from the Gro Harlem Bruntland Commission (1987), “our common crisis” the Willy Brandt Commission (1983) and “our common security” from the Olof Palme Commission (1982). Accessing water may be seen from a similar perspective: lacking access to water represents a fundamental problem for those who do not enjoy access to this basic need, and it is also a significant threat to the stabile and harmonious development of society, the common good. Poor access to water is exacerbated by increasing climate variability and the occurrence of conflict or natural disasters. Efforts must be made to allocate and use the entire water resource in the most worthwhile manner, taking into account the social, economic and environmental needs. Household provisions are, of course, the most basic need, but for overall development, it is of paramount importance to remember that water is sine qua non in virtually all sectors of society and that household water requirements are quite small in quantitative terms. Another major difference is the variation in water requirements over time and between sectors. For example, the agricultural sector needs water on a seasonal basis whereas households require drinking water on a daily continuous basis. Storage is consequently an important issue. The different options for storing water, from large dams to household rainwater tanks, were examined during the week. Each option has benefits and risks, necessitating an integrated basin approach that enhances the potential complementarities between the options. With growing concentrations of people in areas where natural availability is limited, bulk transfers are often seen as an option. Demands to transfer water over long distances come from many sectors, although the most pressing claims are related to urban expansion. For inter-basin transfers, it was recommended to first explore and maximise the potential of other options, such as increasing water efficiency and improving allocation, before embarking on the costly and often contentious option of transfer schemes. The issue of the human right to water was highlighted during the World Water Week by the participation of the UN Independent Expert on the Human Right to Water and Sanitation. Despite countries not being obliged to provide access to drinking water and sanitation free of charge, the most basic requirement is that these services must be organised, affordable and not compromise the realisation of other rights such as food, housing and health. Different settings require different and flexible drinking water and sanitation solutions. An important aspect of the right to drinking water and sanitation is that it establishes a legal framework, which clearly defines rights and obligations, and promotes pro-poor and non-discriminatory service provision.
Dealing with social and political boundaries
The special focus on transboundary waters in 2009 saw over 25 sessions deal with various aspects related to managing and governing water across not just national administrative boundaries, but also economic, cultural and sectoral boundaries. The rapporteur report “Managing Water Across Borders” found on pages 9-12 presents more findings related to this special focus. Governing water resources that cross boundaries involves complex technical, financial and monitoring tasks that are intertwined with sensitive and pressing political, social and environmental concerns. The tasks that are deemed necessary must be sanctioned and driven by political decisions. For effective implementation and adherence, agreements among the riparian countries are essential. But prior to this, it is a requirement that national and sub-national water policies and arrangements within each riparian must first be well developed and implemented. Managing transboundary water resources does, naturally, include challenges that are more complex than national and local water management issues. The magnitude and complexity of the water challenge is compounded by the variation in political regimes, level of economic progress, and demographic and cultural circumstances.
Attention to transboundary surface water systems has been apparent for several decades, whereas the interest and concern for transboundary aquifers has only recently gained traction. With climate change and the associated increase in surface water variability, groundwater abstraction and use is expected to increase, which means that improved coordination in the planning and monitoring of surface and groundwater systems is essential. The geopolitical scope and complexity means that, in most cases, the international community plays an important role both in terms of strategic guidance, technical and financial support and as an intermediary agent. Wherever the political power and interests are skewed and detrimental to one or more of the riparian countries, a fair outcome of transboundary water governance cannot be expected in the absence of negotiations, and without a systematic and broad support from a third party. It is a delicate task to design “support” so that the effects of power asymmetries are addressed and minimised. A mix of “sticks and carrots” may be required to guide the process. These may include targeted loans and investment schemes that are linked to how well a particular country has initiated and performed in mutually acceptable agreements. In this context, it is relevant to underline the reference to water and environmental diplomacy during the World Water Week. A new kind of professionalism needs to be promoted where negotiators, to be successful, need to have basic insights into water and environmental issues in addition to conventional diplomatic skills. Progress, in the end, hinges on the ability of the involved parties to realise and accept that a perpetuation of asymmetry increases the risk of costly conflicts and will preclude opportunities for sound development of trade and exchange in other respects. As discussed at a number of meetings during the Week, attention in transboundary water governance should not only be given to water as such, but rather to the benefits that may be generated through rational allocation and efficient use of the resource. It is relevant to demonstrate, over and over again, what is at stake if such an attitude and strategy is lacking. The notion of benefit sharing is generally endorsed, but we need more practical examples of how to generate benefits and how and among whom they are to be shared. We also need to talk more about how to share the risks and commitments that are integral parts of an international water development agenda.
The concept of “benefit sharing” is primarily about the goods and services that may be developed and exchanged as a result of human intervention in water systems. It should be remembered, however, that in many poor areas, direct access to water in the river is presumably the most tangible benefit that communities perceive. To produce other goods and services, for example water supply, navigation, hydropower, irrigation and trade, requires interventions such as investments and technology. Water is required by society as well as ecosystems To balance the water requirements for different uses in society with the requirements to sustain aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems is an urgent and complicated task. It will require difficult tradeoffs and a process whereby those making the decisions need to be aware of the direct and indirect consequences of their decisions to society and the ecosystems on which it depends.
The challenge is to respond to the fact that water has many parallel functions in a catchment, including as a carrier of solutes and silt, a habitat for aquatic ecosystems, and a linkage between upstream and downstream. An integrated approach to land use, water and ecosystems, is the suggested way forward. The overarching aim of such an approach has to be one of moving towards catchment-based compatibility between human activities and the requirements of ecosystems to remain resilient to change. The inherent complexity makes systems analysis an indispensable tool.
Business finds its voice
Water is the bloodstream of society linking all sectors and stakeholders. Each sector has a role to play in how water is managed and developed. The business sector has assumed multiple roles as a user of water, a supplier of water, and as an innovator in technologies and partnership building. The water footprint tool was examined during the Week as a method for business to measure its direct and indirect water use. This concept is gaining increased recognition throughout the business sector and wider water community as a way to establish the link between consumption in one part of the world with the impacts on water systems elsewhere. Despite difficult financial times, representatives from business maintain that the path to sustainability should not be interrupted. In fact, a new model of sustainability was being embraced by many water utility companies based on five principles:
- living within environmental limits
- ensuring a strong, healthy and just society
- achieving a sustainable economy
- using sound science responsibly
- and promoting good governance
The need to incorporate sustainable water governance into business strategies was recognised by leading companies. This has stemmed from the need to “prove” their sustainability assertions to a more aware public. A major challenge for business when developing new products, such as water purifiers, is the lag in social acceptance and knowledge. According to some companies, products have failed in the past due to potential customers not being aware that it was polluted water that was making them sick, and therefore they were not willing to pay for the products. The question was discussed of what enabling environment is needed for business to enter new markets. To answer this, an analysis is needed of the products themselves, the target market (i.e. ultra-poor vs. poor or rural vs. urban) and the inherent market and financial risks.
Vision and leadership for “doing the right thing”
It is often iterated at meetings of the water community that proper institutional arrangements are essential to pave the way for effective water management. However, it tends to be overlooked that it is not the institutional arrangements per se that are vital, but the human and financial resources that are mobilised so that initiatives, skills and practices are stimulated, implemented and replicated. It is through mobilising these resources in all sectors of society that we will enable and deliver concrete and effective actions for dealing with the immense water challenges we face. It is also often remarked that vision and leadership in the political arena is of paramount importance, yet this same vision and leadership also applies to institutions and organisations in all parts of society, such as inter-governmental, research, business, non-governmental and civil society. Leadership and the ability to act are critical aspects of good governance. People who dare to do unconventional things and who are able to take action can make a significant difference. A case in point is the 2009 Stockholm Water Prize laureate, Dr. Bindeshwar Pathak, in his work to overcome caste divisions in the Indian society and to uplift the poor and downtrodden members of society. Throughout the World Water Week, there was an urge to place water higher on the political and policy-making agendas. That is important. But it is equally important that water must be high on the agenda of other groups of people in society. At the time of writing this report, it is not clear to what extent and how water issues will be addressed in COP-15 although water is clearly one of the most tangible dimensions of climate change. A call for action must be directed to a cross section of people in society. In any society and virtually in any social and political system, there is inertia in the sense that people tend to cling to what they are used to and minimise risk and unpleasant experiences. Human behaviour and activities are guided by social and cultural norms and practice. Yet despite this resistance, it has been shown that is possible to change and to empower change throughout society. Again, this is illustrated in the uplifting work of Dr. Pathak and the Sulabh International Social Service Organisation. More efforts that help disadvantaged people to get better access to water and sanitation services are urgently needed.
Presentations and discussions throughout the World Water Week illustrate that formal rules, transparency and financial resources continue to play an important role. But it has also been convincingly argued that a flexible system for decisionmaking that allows for adapting policy as we learn is of great relevance. During the Week, it was eloquently argued that it is better to do the right thing a bit poorly, than to continue to do the wrong thing well. Doing the right thing will depend on our ability to overcome an array of obstacles, which are due largely to the political realities and inertia we face today. Problems with social acceptability, data sharing, demand management, and rational decision-making will make the road ahead treacherous, yet we can draw inspiration from the work of many people and organisations, such as the past and future Stockholm Water Prize laureates.
