Blog

How to Defeat Drought

Cape Town is running out of water. Israel offers some lessons on how to avoid that fate.

By Seth M. Siegel

Cape Town, a city of some 4 million people, is on the verge of running out of water. Terrifying as it may sound, water scarcity never happens by surprise. At the national, provincial, and municipal levels, South Africa’s leaders ignored Cape Town’s shrinking water supply until it became a crisis.

The mistakes were made at every level. Cape Town had no comprehensive, long-term water plan to match water resources with the city’s soaring population. No official program encouraged planting water-efficient crops or the use of water-saving technologies. The city reused only 5 percent of its wastewater for industrial and irrigation purposes. Its water has long been free or heavily subsidized, with no market-based incentive to conserve. And most remarkably, although Cape Town sits on a long seacoast hugging the southern Atlantic Ocean, officials delayed building desalination plants for the city.

But solutions to these problems exist. South African officials should have paid attention to a country that long ago figured out how to deal with water shortages before they appear: Israel.

From its founding, Israel not only prioritized water conservation but celebrated it. Theodor Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, wrote in 1902 that water engineers would be the heroes of a future Jewish state. Heeding that call, Israel’s pre-state leaders developed an early ideological commitment to preserving and expanding the water supply.

The challenge of keeping a desert country hydrated lured Israel’s most talented minds. (In his 1994 Nobel Peace Prize lecture, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin revealed he, too, once dreamed of becoming a water engineer.)

In the early 1960s, Israel began two science fiction-like water initiatives. Recognizing that the amount of water used by showers, dishwashers, and toilets was predictable, Israel turned its national sewage supply into an enormous alternative source of water.

By the early 1980s, Israel had routinized the aggregation and purification of the country’s wastewater and built a parallel water infrastructure system to transport treated water to farms. Today, nearly 90 percent of Israel’s sewage is treated to an ultrapure level for agricultural use.

By comparison, Spain — second globally in sewage recycling — reuses only some 17 percent of its wastewater. The United States repurposes far less. Israel’s second grand water initiative — desalination — also began in the 1960s. Around that time, an experimental desalination facility in Israel produced a cubic meter of water (264 gallons) for $14. Israel now produces the same volume for about 50 cents. By filtering seawater through holes that are about 0.5 nanometers wide, the desalination process captures all dissolved material, including salt, while the fresh water passes through. (The resulting water is so pure that minerals need to be added back in.)

These two technologies alone could prevent, or at least postpone, another Cape Town-like crisis. Yet both are expensive and sometimes out of reach for countries on the lower end of the economic development scale. But Israel also leads in low-cost efforts to reduce the use of water for agriculture.

On average, countries use 70 percent of their fresh water to grow food. Highly inefficient water users — such as Egypt, Ethiopia, and Iran — use as much as 95 percent. Adopting drip irrigation, as Israel has, could reduce those percentages significantly. Drip irrigation uses about half of the water that traditional irrigation does and can also produce larger yields.

Liquid fertilizer can be added along with the water droplets, minimizing groundwater contamination. In both India and China, adopting drip irrigation has increased farmers’ yields and limited groundwater contamination from traditional fertilizer. India subsidizes loans for farmers as an incentive for more rapid adoption.

Israel also saves water by not losing it: Around the world, water systems lose roughly 30 percent of their water after it has been transported, mainly due to cracked pipes and system power surges. Israel prioritizes keeping leaks to a minimum by fixing pipes or by replacing them before they require emergency repairs. The country’s water loss is now below 10 percent due to the use of algorithms that predict where leaks will occur, underground pipe repair tools, and a sonarlike system that pinpoints the locations of tiny leaks that have the potential to grow larger.

What makes Israel such a valuable model for water management isn’t any one thing the country does but the range and integration of its activities. Outside of technology, Israel offers three other replicable elements for all countries.

In Israel, professionals, not politicians, determine water policy. Israel’s most senior water official — the water commissioner, who oversees the Israel Water Authority — serves a five-year term after appointment by a cabinet minister. The water authority makes all water-related decisions. The staff comprises highly skilled civil servants who are protected from the type of political meddling common in other countries.

Second, the Israeli public bears the cost of sourcing, transporting, and cleaning water; there are no government subsidies for water. People are, therefore, theoretically not only more careful with what they use, but they are also happy to substitute lower-cost technology when it helps save water. This sets off a virtuous cycle of invention leading to greater efficiency.

Finally, Israel has built its respect for water conservation into its culture. Beginning in kindergarten, children learn about water efficiency. The United Nations predicts that by 2025 as much as two-thirds of the world’s population could be living underwater-stressed conditions. With climate change, growing populations, and rising affluence, the demand for water is likely to grow substantially in the years ahead. Higher food prices, social unrest, the failure of some fragile states — even mass migrations and a challenge to the world order — could all result. But as Israel has shown, none of those need occur.

This article originally appeared in the April 2018 issue of Foreign Policy magazine.

Source: The Foreign Policy article, How to Defeat Drought

The power of proximity: Closing distance, celebrating difference

President and CEO, Skoll Foundation
Tuesday, 10 April 2018 10:30 GMT

* Any views expressed in this article are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation 

 
Like many children, my granddaughter resists bedtime by sharing fears that get her parents’ and my attention. Recently she was worried about her brain. She was afraid “school-learning” and “all the rules you have to remember” would crowd out her creativity and compassion. While she is yet to understand the brain’s infinite complexity, she has grasped its role in shaping what makes us sentient, sensitive beings.

As psychologists and neuroscientists have demonstrated, we humans are wired to be compassionate and altruistic. Children as young as three, across contexts and cultures, will attempt to “right” what they experience to be unfair. Areas of the human brain linked to recognizing emotions in others operate according to a sort of ‘neural golden rule’, responding with generous and altruistic behavior in direct correlation with the ability to share feelings.

Proximity with our fellow humans awakens our feelings of empathy and compels us to respond. Person to person, in groups and communities, we are better able to understand each other, relate to one another’s needs, and feel moved to act. But faced with injustice and suffering on a large scale, we can feel overwhelmed. When our individual impulse to give and then give more begins to wane, we draw back and look for ways to turn problems over to the agencies we believe have the mandate to develop solutions commensurate with the scale and scope of what’s needed.

As Jean Monnet—one of the architects of the European Union—once said, “Nothing is possible without humans, but nothing lasts without institutions.”

That’s an important touchstone for me. Proximity is a powerful force at both levels. It triggers empathy in individuals. Institutions, too, best fulfill their missions by keeping close to those they serve, where they can appreciate the results of their efforts, learn from experience, and respond to changing contexts. When ideology or complacency blocks this feedback loop, institutions can become remote, bureaucratic, and ineffective.

I have always believed that the institutions upon which democracy depends must be resilient, able to learn and adapt so that they can emerge from episodes of upheaval better able to advance societal progress. Living in Silicon Valley and working with social entrepreneurs around the globe, I have also developed an unshakable belief in innovation and entrepreneurship.

But I worry about the current distance, which sometimes seems like an unbridgeable gulf, between the institutions of democracy and policy, and those of the market and free enterprise. Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and Washington, D.C.—and their equivalents in other countries—are further apart than we might care to acknowledge.

Yet, the structures and principles of democracy must have proximity to interact with the structure and models of free enterprise if we are to realize our ambitions for equity, justice, and shared prosperity.

Much as the twisted strands in the double helix of a DNA molecule reinforce one another thanks to their connective molecular bridges, government’s resilience, and progressiveness depend on an economy spurred by invention and the will to improve the human condition—and vice versa.

Recently my faith in this model has been challenged. Attacks on our democratic institutions by forces aiming to increase their political and economic power are increasingly taking more from the many to enrich the few, and intimidating or punishing those who resist. Instead of reinforcing society’s interests, the two strands of our ‘social helix’ have pulled further and further apart.

Like others, I am heartened by how many have embraced the challenge to regenerate the institutional pillars of their democracies. People of all ages, across all backgrounds and from communities the world over have come together to hold the powerful to account, to insist on more just and sustainable societies. I’ve been moved—and shamed—by students determined to end the scourge of gun violence in the United States and by all who provide sanctuary for immigrants and rights for refugees.

I am encouraged by the groundswell of change born from women who’ve decided enough is enough, who’ve come forward with their stories of abuse and pervasive bias, and who’ve registered in record numbers to run for office. And I’m struck by ever more convincing signals from investors that they are factoring impacts on the environment and society, both negative and positive, into their financial decisions.

Trust may be at an all-time low, but its stores can be replenished. Isolation depletes trust. When we are close to each other, break bread together, listen to each other’s diverse views, and share our dreams for the future, we build trust. On the strength of those interactions, we gain the energy needed to counter demagoguery and strengthen all that binds us to one another.

The Skoll Foundation’s years of supporting social entrepreneurs and learning from their experiences have shaped our understanding of successful social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurs must commit to proximity to gain knowledge of the contexts affecting the communities they serve and the institutions that can help them scale their solutions. They don’t try to be the smartest people in the room but to ensure that those most engaged in and affected by their societies’ challenges come together in order to forge the alliances that will accelerate true and lasting equilibrium change.

The social entrepreneurs who gather at Oxford, and virtually around the world, have sparked conversations leading to real action. This community has helped us see ourselves not as philanthropic protagonists, but as fellow travelers—as proximate partners.

As we all look to step up our game, let’s start with reclaiming our proximity to each other. Let’s re-commit and re-energize our shared power in pursuit of ever more effective approaches. Those ideas and experiences—and fresh insights awaiting discovery—are available to us, here and now, to find, embrace, and pursue in solidarity with those we serve.

Source: Thomas Reuters Foundation News The power of proximity: Closing distance, celebrating difference
Continue reading “The power of proximity: Closing distance, celebrating difference”

Posted in Aid

I Worked For Oxfam For Eight Years

Its Aid Is Vital But The Sector Must Change. Over the last few weeks, I’ve felt ashamed and conflicted

Maya Mailer Former Oxfam policy advisor in South Sudan
23/02/2018 16:23 GMT | Updated 23/02/2018 16:23 GMT
Andres Martinez Casares / Reuters

I left Oxfam over a year ago, after eight years with the organisation. Over the last few weeks, I’ve felt ashamed and conflicted. I’ve had an instinctive urge to defend an organisation that I love, without wanting to excuse wrongdoing or minimise the pain experienced by the abused women.

As we are learning, what happened in Oxfam is not unique to Oxfam – this should be a wake-up call for the entire sector. If the current revelations lead to a transformational #MeToo moment, together with a deeper examination of aid, then that can only be a good thing.

I joined Oxfam back in 2008, in Juba, South Sudan.

I worked mainly with South Sudanese colleagues, as well as Ugandans, Kenyans, Brits, Australians and Pakistanis. It was gruelling work. Talking to communities, we made tough decisions about how to address mammoth need. We sweated into keyboards in sweltering offices to comply with endless donor deadlines. And we danced with villagers around Oxfam-drilled boreholes, the women of the village telling us that, at last, they no longer had to walk for hours to collect water.

We visited Oxfam’s programme teams to provide support in the remotest of locations – and yes, we travelled in 4x4s. This was the only way to reach homes in the deep bush, where Oxfam had water, agriculture and livestock projects. But the sturdy Land Rovers sometimes still got stuck. We’d all pile out, as the driver reminded us to watch out for snakes and landmines.

We toiled, and nobody worked harder than the South Sudanese staff, even as they carried the trauma of war and endured repeated bouts of malaria.

My lasting impression of that time is of collective endeavour – of shared pride when we were able to make a difference, of shared frustration when we could not.

In numerous visits across Africa and the Middle East, I saw how people’s lives were ripped apart by crises, and I saw the value of aid. Not just the physical benefits of water, food and shelter, but the softer ones, too, of Oxfam’s work on women’s rights or support to civil society. The importance of standing in solidarity, bearing witness, just being there.

I also saw the messiness and limitations; the constant moral dilemmas, compromises and unintended consequences. And ultimately how only political action, not aid, could end violence. This is precisely why Oxfam’s dual mandate – being operational and campaigning on the causes of suffering – is essential.

I was involved in difficult discussions about the approach Oxfam should take in conflict contexts. Like many of my colleagues, I would fight from the inside for what I thought was right. Inevitably, at times, I fundamentally disagreed with the ultimate decision, but I knew, at least, it had not been taken lightly.

And this, for me, is the beating heart of Oxfam: a self-critical organisation, agonising as to how to live up to its values and its best self.

Despite being a younger woman, often in male-dominated settings in the ‘field’, I never encountered sexual abuse. Throughout, my Oxfam experience was of working in a respectful, nurturing environment (where my bosses, women and men, supported me with the work-life juggle and to rise across two maternity leaves).

But just because I didn’t see any abuse doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening. I suspect that I was protected, at least partly, by my nationality, race, and, as the years went by, relative rank. I know that some of my colleagues in Oxfam, and probably even more so in the wider sector, had entirely different experiences.

I commend the courage of women in the sector who are speaking out, privately or publicly, anonymously or otherwise. Please keep speaking. We need to hear you. And you need justice.

We know that sexual abuse is endemic in society – and charities are clearly not immune.

But systemic issues in the aid sector also facilitate abuse: the macho, adrenaline-fuelled culture of an emergency response; the unmanageable workload, burnout and high staff turnover that can result in poor oversight; the absence of rule of law in some disaster zones; and the imperative to get the job done. Perhaps above all, the inherent disparity in power between expatriates and so-called ‘locals’.

Perceived fundraising imperatives, in the face of strident attacks on aid, have meant that charities (and donors) have not spoken openly about the complex reality of aid. Slick communication material eulogises aid workers as heroes and their job as pure, noble and simple. Some charity bosses, invariably men, have internalised that narrative or expertly manipulated it to claim that they or their organisations are above reproach.

And among all this, the voices of women, of junior colleagues, of ‘locals’, have not been listened to as they should.

We face a watershed moment. It means all of us examining our privilege and power, relinquishing power, and taking personal responsibility to bring about change.

The sector should reform but it also needs the breathing space to do so.

Yes, it is right to decry the weaknesses in Oxfam safeguarding (even if improvements were made post Haiti) but with an acknowledgment that proper safe-guarding – like delivery of quality aid – requires bureaucracy and money.

Oxfam may have become unwieldy, but those who denounce it for being ‘too big’ are often loathe to recognise that one reason for growth is rising need: more and more people are affected by war and disaster. And yet when Oxfam campaigns on the drivers of suffering, it is accused of being too political.

There is no excuse for what happened at Oxfam or in any charity. But nor should it eclipse the vitally good, if imperfect, work that Oxfam has done and is doing. Right now, dedicated Oxfam teams in war-torn Yemen and Congo, and multiple other places, are getting up at the crack of dawn to help people in need.

While seeking to maintain this work, Oxfam has committed to listen and learn – I hope it does. And, I hope the sector follows suit, and it is given the space to do so.

Maya Mailer worked for Oxfam GB from late 2008 to early 2017, first as a policy advisor in South Sudan and then in the Oxford headquarters. She visited Oxfam’s programmes across Africa and the Middle East. In her last role with Oxfam GB, she was Head of Humanitarian Campaigns and Policy. She now freelances for the UK charity sector. She writes in her personal capacity.

Source: Huffington Post article, I Worked For Oxfam For Eight Years

The human right to water and sanitation

Resolution adopted by the [UN] General Assembly on 28 July 2010

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolutions 54/175 of 17 December 1999 on the right to development, 55/196 of 20 December 2000, by which it proclaimed 2003 the International Year of Freshwater, 58/217 of 23 December 2003, by which it proclaimed the International Decade for Action, “Water for Life”, 2005–2015 59/228 of 22 December 2004, 61/192 of 20 December 2006, by which it proclaimed 2008 the International Year of Sanitation, and 64/198 of 21 December 2009 regarding the midterm comprehensive review of the implementation of the International Decade for Action, “Water for Life”; Agenda 21 of June 1992;(1) the Habitat Agenda of 1996; (2) the Mar del Plata Action Plan of 1977 adopted by the United Nations Water Conference; (3) and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of June 1992, (4)

Recalling also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (5) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (6) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 6 the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, (7) the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, (8) the Convention on the Rights of the Child, (9) the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (10) and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, (11)

Recalling further all previous resolutions of the Human Rights Council on human rights and access to safe drinking water and sanitation, including Council resolutions 7/22 of 28 March 2008 (12) and 12/8 of 1 October 2009, (13) related to the human right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation, general comment No. 15 (2002) of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, on the right to water (articles 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) (14) and the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the scope and content of the relevant human rights obligations related to equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation under international human rights instruments, (15) as well as the report of the independent expert on the issue of human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, (16)

Deeply concerned that approximately 884 million people lack access to safe drinking water and that more than 2.6 billion do not have access to basic sanitation, and alarmed that approximately 1.5 million children under 5 years of age die and 443 million school days are lost each year as a result of water- and sanitation-related diseases,

Acknowledging the importance of equitable access to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as an integral component of the realization of all human rights,

Reaffirming the responsibility of States for the promotion and protection of all human rights, which are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, and must be treated globally, in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis,

Bearing in mind the commitment made by the international community to fully achieve the Millennium Development Goals, and stressing, in that context, the resolve of Heads of State and Government, as expressed in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, (17) to halve, by 2015, the proportion of people who are unable to reach or afford safe drinking water and, as agreed in the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (“Johannesburg Plan of Implementation”), (18) to halve the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation,

1. Recognizes the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human rights;

2. Calls upon States and international organizations to provide financial resources, capacity-building and technology transfer, through international assistance and cooperation, in particular to developing countries, in order to scale up efforts to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all;

3. Welcomes the decision by the Human Rights Council to request that the independent expert on human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation submit an annual report to the General Assembly, (13) and encourages her to continue working on all aspects of her mandate and, in consultation with all relevant United Nations agencies, funds and programmes, to include in her report to the Assembly, at its sixty-sixth session, the principal challenges related to the realization of the human right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation and their impact on the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.

108th plenary meeting
28 July 2010

======

FOOTNOTES:

1 Report of the United Nations Conference on Enviro
nment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June
1992, vol. I, Resolutions Adopted by the Conference
(United Nations publication, Sales No. E.93.I.8 and
corrigendum), resolution 1, annex II.
2 Report of the United Nations Conference on Hum
an Settlements (Habitat II), Istanbul, 3–14 June 1996
(United Nations publication, Sales No. E.97
.IV.6), chap. I, resolution 1, annex II.
3 Report of the United Nations Water Conference, Mar del Plata, 14–25 March 1977
(United Nations
publication, Sales No. E.77.II.A.12), chap. I.
4 Report of the United Nations Conference on Enviro
nment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3–14 June
1992, vol. I, Resolutions Adopted by the Conference
(United Nations publication, Sales No. E.93.I.8 and
corrigendum), resolution 1, annex I.
5 Resolution 217 A (III).
6 See resolution 2200 A (XXI), annex.
7 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 660, No. 9464.
8 Ibid., vol. 1249, No. 20378.
9 Ibid., vol. 1577, No. 27531.
10 Resolution 61/106, annex I.
11 United Nations, Treaty Series , vol. 75, No. 973.
12 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-third Session, Supplement No. 53
(A/63/53), chap. II.
13 See A/HRC/12/50 and Corr.1, part one, chap. I.
14 See Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, 2003, Supplement No. 2 (E/2003/22), annex IV.
15 A/HRC/6/3.
16 A/HRC/12/24.
17 See resolution 55/2.
18 See Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August–4 September 2002 (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.03.II.A.1 and corrigendum), chap. I, resolution 2, annex.

=====

Source Courtesy of:
UN General Assembly, Sixty-fourth session, Agenda item 48
Distr.: General 3 August 2010

How creating a water poverty map for all of Africa can help sound policies

By: Hatem Jemmali

African countries are behind the global curve when it comes to providing people with clean water and sanitation services. A joint monitoring report by the World Health Organisation and UNICEF shows that 89% of the world’s population has access to clean water sources. In sub-Saharan Africa, the figure is 64%. Globally, 64% of people have access to decent sanitation services. But this is true for less than a third of sub-Saharan Africa’s population.
How creating a water poverty map for all of Africa can help sound policies

© franco volpato – 123RF.com

This lack of access can be fatal, particularly for children. The absence of clean water and basic sanitation is among the leading causes of mortality among those younger than five all across the continent. It also places a huge burden on Africa’s women. It is they who must walk long distances to gather water from streams, ponds and wells.

Research has also showed how unreliable water supply is simultaneously a cause and result of poverty. South African water researcher Dr Anthony Turton coined the phrase “water poverty” to describe societies that cannot cope with the problem of water scarcity.

This prompted the development of the Water Poverty Index by ecological and environmental economist Professor Caroline Sullivan in 2002. The index allows researchers to produce an integrated assessment of water stress and scarcity, linking physical estimates of water availability with socioeconomic variables that reflect poverty.

There’s wide agreement that the index is useful and reliable. But its indicators are not appropriate for all contexts. That’s why I set out to create a set of indicators that can be applied in the African context. These indicators include a country’s seasonal variability of rainfall; a nation’s water investments and how efficiently it uses water in agriculture and industry. Another indicator is a country’s Human Development Index, which takes into account factors like life expectancy, education and average income.

This allowed me to map Africa’s water poverty situation, giving a good sense of how different this is across countries on the continent.

My findings offer a transparent analysis for policymakers, governments and organisations that deal with water issues. They can use the information from the index to assess the opportunities and risks involved with interventions. They’ll also have a better understanding of the socioeconomic factors that affect different African countries’ water management policies rather than treating the whole continent as a homogeneous mass.

What will work in Seychelles, which has a low level of water poverty, will not necessarily be useful in Djibouti, whose water poverty levels are high.

New indicators for Africa

I chose 15 indicators from 22 variables to compute five components for the African Water Poverty Index: resources, access, capacity, use and
environment.

The results are mapped across a number of water poverty maps that I developed. They show that water poverty follows a complex, diverse spatial pattern. Africa’s most economically developed countries are also its most water-scarce. These are located mainly in northern and southern Africa and includes Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and South Africa. Water-rich but lower income countries are mainly concentrated in the sub-Saharan region – places like Gabon, Central African Republic and Congo.

This suggests that as some countries grow and attract more people looking for work, their water resources will become more pressurised. These countries must put long term, sustainable water management plans in place so they don’t run short of water – a scenario that would greatly hamper further economic development and growth.

The index also suggests what form these plans might take. North African countries, for instance, ought to pay more attention to improving the use of scarce water resources in agriculture and other sectors. Higher water efficiency and consumer conservation programmes are required.

In the sub-Saharan region, meanwhile, access to piped water and sanitation facilities remains generally very low. These countries may be “richer” in water than their northern counterparts, but this reality is not experienced by many residents. Anyone working in the water sector in these countries ought to be focusing on how to improve access to safe water and effective sanitation.

A useful tool

The ConversationMy hope in creating this Africa-focused index is that policymakers, politicians and development experts will be able to apply the data. Such a multi-dimensional assessment of water poverty for the continent could make a big difference to management and planning.

A Matter of Survival – Report of the Global High-Level Panel on Water and Peace

Report from Geneva Water Hub
Published on 14 Sep 2017 View Original

 

Synopsis

TOWARDS AN EFFECTIVE INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION FOR WATER AS A DRIVER OF PEACE

The Drama of Water

The world is facing the drama of water. Around two billion people lack access to safe drinking water. Most of them live in fragile, often violent regions of the world. In contemporary armed conflicts, water resources and installations are being increasingly attacked and used as weapons of war. Moreover, water scarcity is exacerbated in a world with a growing population facing human-induced climate change. Despite these problems, humanity will have to find ways to produce 50 percent more food and double its energy production by the middle of the century.

A fundamental rethinking of international water cooperation is essential, with the UN at the center of efforts for the necessary policy and institutional changes. The UN General Assembly should convene a full-fledged intergovernmental Global Conference on International Water Cooperation, with the aim of formulating a cooperation strategy and defining its specific priorities, and devising an action plan for the five-year period following the Global Conference.

Into the Abyss: Water in Armed Conflicts

The increasing tendency in a number of contemporary armed conflicts is to make water resources and infrastructure targets of attack or weapons of war, particularly in urban areas. These practices are flagrant violations of International Humanitarian Law and must be condemned. States have an obligation to respect and ensure respect for and compliance with International Humanitarian Law. The international community as a whole should assist humanitarian organizations since a permanent, long-term partnership between humanitarian organizations and local providers of services is of great importance for the effective protection or restoration of water infrastructure.

International efforts to maintain peace and security have to include effective policies for the protection of water infrastructure against all attacks, including terrorist attacks, while giving special priority to the humanitarian needs of affected civilian populations. The UN Security Council bears primary responsibility in this regard and should consider adopting, within its action for the protection of civilians in armed conflict, a resolution on the protection of water resources and installations in all the situations on the Council’s agenda.

An Ounce of Prevention: International Water Law and Transboundary Water Cooperation

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. International Water Law has developed a number of principles, norms and institutions that provide the basis of international water cooperation and result in greater stability and conflict prevention. The UN Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses (1997 UN Watercourses Convention) and the UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (1992 UNECE Water Convention) are the essential international instruments in this regard. The principle of equitable and reasonable utilization of watercourses and the obligation not to cause significant harm constitute the core around which appropriate international regimes can be developed. The right to safe drinking water and sanitation is recognized as a moral imperative of our time and as a human right.

However, in many areas of the world much still remains to be done to expand transboundary and regional water cooperation to the desired level. This need applies to river basins, including some traditionallysensitive river basins, as well as to internationally shared aquifers. The latter need is critical as the existing level of international cooperation is still far from satisfactory: out of approximately 400 internationally shared aquifers there are only 5 where international agreements exist. Transboundary water agreements and institutions, as well as the relevant “soft law” instruments represent valuable tools that should be utilized more fully.

Quantity and Quality: Strengthening of the Knowledge-Based and Data-Driven Decision Making and Cooperation for Security and Peace Building

Changes affecting water quantity such as droughts and floods – increasingly provoked by the effects of human-induced climate change – require intensified international cooperation and stronger institutions.
At the same time, deteriorating water quality in many regions of the world, partly a result of the same causes, needs to be urgently addressed. Another problem exists in those internationally shared aquifers where the withdrawal of groundwater is greater than nature’s ability to recharge the particular aquifer. Often the actual knowledge about the situations of aquifers is inadequate while the process of depletion continues. The technical, legal and policy instruments available to address these issues differ from region to region, and from country to country.

Therefore, monitoring and data sharing is an important task that should be prioritized at the global level. A strong, integrated global data and monitoring system needs to be developed on the basis of ongoing work by UNESCO, WMO, and UNEP. Another vital undertaking relates to the application and further development of international water quality standards, both regional and global. And finally, it will be necessary to overcome the existing fragmented institutional landscape related to water issues.

People’s Diplomacy, Inter-Sectoral Water Management and Decision Making

Since water management and transboundary water cooperation affects people’s health and well-being directly, and therefore carries an important ethical dimension, water governance in all its forms has to allow all relevant stakeholders to participate in decision making. Moreover, the trade-offs necessary between the various uses of water such as agriculture, energy generation, mining, human consumption, and others, have to be carefully considered, while respecting the needs of all those concerned. Although most of the decisions taken in these situations are made within states, good practices should be studied and lessons learned internalized. When decisions are taken at the transboundary water cooperation level, arrangements should be made to allow the participation of all stakeholders.

Transparency and data sharing are particularly important aspects of decision making relating to water, and governments are well advised to ensure the necessary multi-stakeholder dialogue platforms. For these to be operated effectively, it is necessary to invest systematically in water education at all levels, including the empowerment of women. Best practices should be studied and lessons learned should be applied by all governments and other stakeholders. The UN Global Compact, which involves tens of thousands of private companies around the world, would be instrumental in developing an appropriate voluntary code of practice on water management.

Financial Innovation for Water Cooperation

Since fostering transboundary water cooperation is an important priority in our era, it is necessary to develop sustainable financial mechanisms specifically aimed at promoting water as an instrument of peace. Transboundary water infrastructures such as dams and irrigation systems are currently financed by a variety of public and private sector investors, with funding available through existing financial facilities such as the International Waters (IW) Program of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), other climate finance mechanisms, and by bilateral and multilateral donors. The available conventional finance should also be used effectively to promote transboundary water cooperation projects.

Additional incentives are also necessary, and could include preferential and concessional finance for transboundary collaborative projects in water resources and infrastructure of a significant size. Incentives such as interest subsidies, financing of preparatory costs and insurance costs, as well as the provision of matching grants could also be provided. The Panel recommends the creation of a Blue Fund for these purposes. In addition, we believe that it is important to create a safe space, i.e. an opportunity for pre-negotiation consultations and other activities occurring at an early project development stage. This would help stakeholders address the major implementation problems well in advance, prepare projects proactively, increase confidence among all stakeholders, and would significantly help the process of financial decision making.

In Pursuit of Agency: New Mechanisms of Water Diplomacy

A variety of international institutions are working on water issues, ranging from research and knowledge management organizations, river basin organizations or transboundary water management systems, to regional organizations and a variety of UN actors. While all of these institutions are doing important work and contributing to international water cooperation, what is needed now is an institutional setting that connects these key actors, and reinforces and complements the existing frameworks, initiatives and expertise. In other words, there is a need to leverage water as an instrument of cooperation and peace. We need a new mechanism to pursue “agency” as an increased capacity to act together, and not as another institution.

The Panel thus proposes the Global Observatory for Water and Peace (GOWP) to facilitate assistance to governments in using water as an instrument of cooperation, in avoiding tension and conflicts, and to build peace. The GOWP would work closely with existing organizations at the global and regional level, which specialize in water cooperation and harnessing the potential of water in building peace. The new mechanism would focus on hydro-diplomacy beyond joint management, and would also engage in consultative activities necessary for the creation of “safe spaces” for financing transboundary water cooperation projects.

Water as an Asset for Peace: Conclusions and Recommendations

The Report of the High-Level Panel on Water and Peace consists of seven chapters covering the main areas of our analysis. Each chapter is concluded by a set of specific recommendations outlining further action. The Panel offers general conclusions and summarizes all of its recommendations in the final chapter, thus allowing the reader to see the whole picture of suggested further activities. The Panel hopes that its conclusions and recommendations will help decision makers develop a coherent vision of necessary future activities and assist in practical policy making.

 

Source: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/matter-survival-report-global-high-level-panel-water-and-peace

 

Somaliland’s hunger crisis: ‘The world doesn’t respond until children are dying’

Failure to recognise Somaliland’s independence means aid that could save lives of people hit by drought and cholera is too slow to arrive, says foreign minister

Somaliland’s foreign minister has said that the international community’s refusal to recognise the republic 26 years after it declared independence means aid is taking far longer to reach people on the brink of famine.

Though Somaliland, on the Gulf of Aden, has 4.4 million inhabitants and its own currency, army and parliament, in the eyes of the world it is part of war-torn Somalia. More than 1.5 million people have been affected by the drought afflicting the state, and most of its livestock has been wiped out. In recent days, the drought has been compounded by an outbreak of cholera in the east.

Saad Ali Shire, Somaliland’s foreign minister, said: “Lack of recognition is proving a major problem. We do not receive bilateral aid. All aid goes to the third parties via the UN. The UN has very professional people, but the bureaucracy that goes with these many channels is huge, and there is a high administrative cost. If we were recognised, we could receive aid bilaterally, and attract international investors – so creating a more resilient economy that is less dependent on livestock.

“I don’t think people took our warnings of famine seriously until the start of the year. It seems the international community does not seem to respond until there are emaciated and dying children on their TV screens.

“The assistance now through the UN is very slow and bureaucratic. There is no lack of will, but it often takes months for aid to reach the country as it has to go through so many levels.”

Somaliland, a former British colony, declared independence from Somalia in 1991 and has been praised for its relative political stability and lack of conflict.

Now, the country’s leaders are reopening a battle for diplomatic recognition, believing that if they can persuade one swing state in the African Union, such as Ghana, to recognise the country, the rest of the international community will follow. The drought, and crisis in neighbouring Somalia, have added to the urgency.

“We have always had droughts, but they used to be once every 10 years. Now they are once every two years due to climate change,” said Shire. “This year, we have had the worst drought in living memory across east Africa.

“The drought has destroyed 80% of the country’s cattle and we are a pastoral economy. The bureaucracy has been so slow that in large parts of the country little or no aid has arrived.”

Others estimate that about half of the country’s 18 million livestock have died.

Shire claimed the Somali government in Mogadishu was increasingly assertive in trying to appropriate a disproportionate amount of international aid sent to the region.

The UK and the US are by far the two largest donors to the UN famine appeal and have been at the forefront of efforts to rouse the international community to improve security inside Somalia.

Insisting that its claim for legal recognition would not worsen Somalia’s existing problems, Shire said: “We have stood the test of time. We have lasted 26 years. We are a mature democracy and country, and we believe in democracy.”

The UN has expressed concern that presidential elections in Somaliland would not be held until November, but Shire said they had been delayed due to drought and promised they would go ahead.

“From 1991 to 1997, we had conflict, civil wars and upheavals, but we have managed to resolve these issues – unlike Somalia – through reconciliation, demobilisation and better governance,” he said.

Shire said the international community was spending $2bn (£1.5m) a year to improve security in Somalia and questioned the point of giving it new weapons. “We suffer from the syndrome of being the good child. Naughty children get all the attention. The international community seems to be willing to reward failure, and penalise success.

“Somalia would benefit from our independence. We would be be able to share our experience with them on how to achieve reconciliation and prosperity. We want nothing from Somalia. We do not want land or money from them. We want our independence.”

He also urged the international community to rebuff Somalia’s recent call for a lifting of the arms embargo to defeat Islamic militants al-Shabaab. “The place is already awash with weapons. What they need to do is gain the confidence of the people. The government does not need new arms. It needs to collect the weapons that are already there.”

 

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/may/24/somaliland-hunger-crisis-world-doesnt-respond-until-children-are-dying-foreign-minister-saad-ali-shire?CMP=share_btn_tw