Datasets:

jilp00

/

water-diplomacy-transcripts

like 0

water should be managed in a trans boundary or watershed or ecological boundary. So in that case, I can see the relation with the IWRM and water diplomacy because when I say that water should be managed in a watershed or trans boundary scale, that means it definitely crosses boundary of ecological boundary with the political boundary. And it can immediately create institutional mismatch. And that can be managed through water diplomacy approach. So that's how I can see a relation with IWRM. So I can see auto diplomacy can be useful for the difficulties that have IWRM implementation can be somehow implemented through incorporating water diplomacy, of course. That's how I feel the relation of IWRM and order diplomacy. Do you want to go to your next slide and look at the principles of IWRM explicitly in light of the general discussion we've had. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, so these are just a historical perspective of IWRM. So according to, so it just started from the UN conference on Water in Marth del Plata in 1977, then in 1992 Dublin conference. This is the main building block for developing the IWRM principles. And in this conference, these four principles has been considered. So the principle number one is the fresh order is finite and vulnerable resources, essential to sustain life

development and the environment. So here you can compare the thinking of the water diplomacy. So it's completely opposite of the thinking of the Dublin principle where outer diplomacy framework considered water is the flexible resource instead of finite and vulnerable resource. So how the conflicting situation can be, yeah, can be considered as the cooperative thinking. That can be a major shift of thinking in terms of principles of IWRM and water diplomacy. So in terms of principle number two, water diplomacy and management should be based on a participatory approach involving users, planners and policy makers at all levels. And another important principle is the women should be a part of the decision-making process like provision, management and safeguarding of water, specifically considering the role of women in the developing country, how they are involved, closely involved with the water resource management and services of the water resources. And the fourth and final principle is that water has an economic value in all its components recognized as an economic resource. So these are the four principles of Dublin Conference in 1992. And then another event where IWRM was first established is second World Order from a Mysterial Conference in the Hague, where I was considered the equity criteria along with subsidiary subsidies to poor. This is also considered as a principle of IWRM. And then it is declared in the International Conference on Freshwater in Bonn, 2001, and then World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. So now

based on this principles, IWRM has been, as you can see, from the Global Order Partnership definition, that IWRM is considered as a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources. In order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner and without compromising the sustainability of the vital ecosystems. So it incorporates theoretically multiple aspects like it is considered as a planning process as Larry already mentioned and it incorporates the coordinated development like TBA kind of development pattern which incorporates not only water resources, but also water and related resources that are linked with water can be managed together for maximizing the economic and social welfare with an equity basis of considering the sustainability of the ecosystems. So that is the broader definition of IWRM. And probably you have reading this criticism by Osithbusus, and where he mainly criticized the vague definition of integration, what issues needs to be integrated, and how it can be a process. And so in terms of operational point of view, he identified this vagueness. And in terms of theory, it's fine, but in terms of implementation, how this can be applied in a given context, this is completely vague. That's what his message is broadly regarding IWRM. So we try to identify main dimensions of IWRM. So these are the dimensions that in our studies that we try to identify. So first

our dimension is integrated management. And the second dimension is the river basin or watershed should be the special scale for managing water resources. And water governance or institutional mechanism for governing water is very important and involving stakeholders and public participations is also one of the key dimensions of IWRM and consideration of water as an economic good is an important consideration of IWRM and also ensuring gender equity and social, yes, social capital is one of the main dimensions. So these are the seven dimensions of the IWRM. Here I can see as I was mentioning that river basin as a specialist scale and to implement this river basin for water resources management, it certainly creates conflict and for managing that auto diplomacy can play an important role for managing water resources. For integrated management, there are criticisms that needs to be integrated, and that also depends on the specific context and a specific context by engaging stakeholders, what issues needs to be integrated can be decided and can be, yeah, it can be considered in a negotiation table. That can be part of the implementation part of the IWRM through order diplomacy approach. So that's how I consider that for implementing IWRM, the criticism that has in the literature, some of the criticism can be overcome when we consider the water diplomacy approach. That's that's how I see. I don't know. Larry, what would be your opinion on the linkage between IWRM and water diplomacy? Well, I thought your description was very reasonable. I'm

I start with the problems in practice. And maybe that's why I'm less tolerant of some of the fuzziness and some of the ambiguity in IWRM the way it's been written about and the way it emerged. I mean calling water and economic good leads to the notion that you should get the prices right if you want to protect the environment, if you want to protect the water. But as soon as you start talking about getting the prices right, you're assuming water is a commodity. And if you think water should be a right, then the price is not relevant. And thinking of it as an economic good is not helpful. And some of you know, I'm working on the problem of water shutoffs in American cities, where people who can't pay their bill for their water for a month or two have their water shut off. Well, they can't pay their bill because they're out of work. And telling them they have to pay their bill isn't going to make it possible for them to pay their bill. And then the next thing that the water department does is it calls the family services department and says take the children out of that home. There's no water there. It's that's not hygienic. So their kids are taken away. They still can't pay the bill. And then the next thing that happens is the city puts, sells the lien, it's an economic instrument, on the debt. Because the city needs money to pay to maintain the water system. And if people don't pay their bills, it doesn't have the money

it can't maintain the system. So it sells the debt to private moneylenders who then come after the person on our daily basis and saying, not only do you owe us the $900 from the last four months, now the interest rate and we've just increased it to 10% interest. They can't pay the debt, they can't pay the interest. And then after a year, the city says we're going to sell your house. To recoup the amount mounting debt. We have all kinds of cities in the United States where the water authority sells liens and forecloses on homes all because people could pay the fee for water because they lost their job. Now, we have laws that don't allow the electricity company to turn off electricity in the winter if you can't pay your bill, because the presumption is you'll die. But we don't have comparable laws that say you can't shut off people's water. Now during COVID, very interestingly, we have had a moratorium on water shutoffs in some cities because now the presumption is people have a good excuse for being unable to pay their bills. But before, somehow, they didn't have an excuse, like, they lost their job. This is all a function of thinking of water as an economic good. What if we said every residential property gets a certain minimum amount of water that you need to stay alive? It doesn't cost anything. And then all the water above that, you pay a price relative to your ability to pay. Well

we never had in the United States a system of water fees based on ability to pay until last year when Philadelphia passed the first municipal law saying that they wanted to move in a different direction and have people pay for some portion of their water relative to their ability to pay. And you can imagine the legal battle that's now ongoing about whether that's okay or not. But all of that stems from the idea that water is a commodity and we should have to buy and sell it. And Australia, when it saw that it was running out of water, fresh water, and had all terrible forest fires and other difficulties, bought, as a government, all the water rights in one state back from the owners at a prevailing price per hectare. And then it paid back the money by selling back the water rights, but on a different basis to people to try to have greater equity in the availability of water. So it built a whole system based on water as an economic good in order to address a common need where if we thought of water as a natural resource and as a common resource, pricing wouldn't be the focus. And we've tried to make a market out of everything in the Western capitalist countries. And so now we have problems of water being unavailable to different groups of people. And I worry that IWRM is about maximizing water as an economic good. That's one of the seven principles or whatever that you had listed. What is an economic good? And there are several of the principles I understand completely where they came from. But when I look in practice

the problem is we have underinvestment in the capital improvements necessary to get water to people that need it. And there's not a way to solve that through integrated water resource management. That's a political, ethical, moral decision. So a lot of the conflicts, some of which don't rise to the level of a formal conflict because the poor, the disadvantaged, the marginalized, don't have the political cloud to make a fight. But in fact, there's a conflict with very large numbers of people in different parts of the world unable to get adequate water because there's no way to pay the capital cost to build the desolination plant, to build the water movement system to get water from one place to another. So that's what I worry about IWRM causing conflict and not providing a pathway to resolution of conflicts, given some of the principles it includes. Yeah. I had a different perspective to what you just said. For example, if a poor person in my country doesn't have access to clean water, he's like installing a hand pump or something at the cost of $1,000 or something

it's an additional burden to his daily income. What if the state would have provided him a water supply network with a certain pricing and the state had ensured that that water was clean enough to drink like for example I in Pakistan can't drink water directly from tap I'm not sure about drinking water directly from the tap but here in in my residence in Ithaca I drink water directly from tap. So by this I'm saving money from the bottle water and then I'm saving money for installing my own boring system or pumping system. So if the state provided me with clean water with certain price in which they are maintaining the infrastructure, which is lesser than the amount which I am spending back home on bottled water and boring water costs like do well or something like that. Then do you don't think that the approach would be most better, the pricing, water pricing approach would be better in this scenario? You're paying rent in Ithaca that includes water cost. And if you lived in Flint, Michigan, you would be paying not that much different rent, but you couldn't drink the water from the top because it's been allowed to become contaminated. And the city doesn't have the resources to rebuild the whole system. So we've pushed on to individuals the cost of getting water in some cities where we've allowed the water to become contaminated. Maintaining clean water is, I would argue, a common cost, not an individualized cost. While you can go buy water in bottles, we still expect the availability of clean water from the tap

drinkable water that won't kill you, to be a common cost. If it's a common cost, then we should collect taxes from everybody in a progressive way and take care of building the things that are common like clean water system. So I know, I heard the comparison you're making, but I would argue both in Pakistan and in the United States that the responsibility of local government should be to provide drinkable water for people as a capital cost that's a collective cost. And whether that cost is paid for from taxes, which could be collected in a progressive way, or fees, which typically are not collected in a progressive way. They don't look at ability to pay. I think we can have that debate about what's the fair way to collect the money. But once the money is collected, it should be used to get everybody a minimum amount of clean water. That's my argument. Yeah, and I think that also fits with the IWRM principle, like social equity and yeah, so. Yes, and to add to your point that, I mean, it is a IWRM is a collective approach. It's not about governments only. It's about people also, society, societal education. For example, if you're doing, you just said, use the word contamination. Who is doing contamination? We are doing contamination. We are mixing water water with water. We are doing water thefts. We are doing hold to the main water supply line to get more water for ourselves. That is something related to the societal education. If we do not educate people that water should be treated as a precious resource that it should not be contaminated

it's like a joint responsibility, not the responsibility of government only. I agree. I agree. You'll have to excuse me. I'm trying desperately to get the folks planning Glasgow to approach the problem in a different way than they did in Paris. And they have chosen this hour, at least I have a chance to talk to them. I'm not making any progress. This is the third try, but I feel obliged. If they just meet in Glasgow and do again what they did in Paris, we're doomed. And there has to be a different discussion. And there's a group of us who are trying to promote a different global discussion on this question. So I'm going to disappear. But the conversation about IWRM is important because you need, each of you, needs to formulate, to take a stand, to formulate an idea of how you think water should be managed and how you think disputes over the management of water should be resolved. And I don't think either Anamesh or I thinks we know all the answers and I don't think there's only one solution for all places and all times, but we need to be thinking prescriptively. And if the best language we could say is social needs are important, common goods should be taken into account. Water should be managed in a comprehensive fashion. Look at the linkage between water and everything. I don't think that inspires action or policy. I think it's too vague. So I'm pushing you to think in more explicit, prescriptive terms and then to be able to argue for it, for that view. Before you leave

can you just tell me the question you are you're going to address in this meeting? Yes. What should be done before the meeting by the people who will be coming to the meeting while they can still formulate new policy choices? Because once you're at the meeting, all you do is argue about the text that's been sent out, and every 197 delegations have been sent there with very explicit instructions by their country. There's no problem solving that can happen at the meeting. But before the meeting, everyone is busy figuring out what they want everybody else to do. There's no joint planning beforehand that, and it, because it can't be done in an official way. If it's done an official way, then everybody's there reading the script from their country saying everybody else is responsible, this is a problem, that's a problem, nothing can happen. So we're trying to get a different kind of conversation amongst a substantial number of the people who will be at the conference representing their countries into conversations between now and the summer, not in their official capacity, just in terms of problem solving and not just technical, the others as well. But people say, well, how would you decide who participates? And my argument is it doesn't matter. They're not going to decide anything. They're just going to put forward good proposals. Let's just have a diverse group that wants to put forward proposals in the collective interest. Well, where would you have it? When would you have it? I said

it doesn't matter. We do it online. We just need to start work on new proposals of a different kind. And the question that I'm saying that the proposal should be about, what help does your country need to get to net zero by 2030? Not what's your responsibility for cutting stuff. What help do you say you need to get to net zero by 2030? And collect that and look at the differences amongst what countries say they want to need. And then figure out how different countries can help each other work toward that as the goal. 2030 net zero. That's what we have to aim for. But now what we have is how much of the overrun will you agree to accept no matter what it costs you. And the answer is you can't make me do it. That's Paris. And we're going to get it again in Glasgow. So that's what I'm the conversation I'm trying to promote. Forgive me. Yeah. I will see you all next week. So, um, Mastupi wanted to say something. Maybe quickly because we only have an hour left. I have a very small question that is, I agree with the with Marriza argument that there should be a minimum amount of water for every household or every person instead of putting them extreme pressure through the capitalistic system. This is a completely agree, but at the same time in my country I've seen and probably have seen also that when something is free, or whatever the amount that is, when something is free, most of the people, and that is, I have seen from my observation, and I'm sure that the research, if anyone does it, would give the similar data, that when something is free

there is a tendency to waste. And in Bangladesh or in developing country, a huge number of people, they would be not that rich to afford it. So the government would be giving them a massive amount of water in total. And if everybody wastes just a little or the majority of the people waste just a little, that's a huge amount of water being wasted., because it's free and just because it's free people do not evaluate that much. So I was thinking that how do we make a mechanism to stop that? Is there any mechanism at all? So that was my question. Yeah, I think that in terms of IWRM, principle, the mechanism is there. So we need to, yeah, place a price on the water and yeah, on equity basis, the price could be different for different group of people and that that can help efficiency of water use and that that is kind of demand side management of water resources that is needed for yeah increasing water use efficiency. So yeah, the mechanism is there in terms of theoretical aspect, but for implementing in Bangladesh or any specific countries is, yeah, there are problems. So maybe now we can discuss water energy and food nexus. The still any food. So water energy and food nexus. This is another important paradigm of water resources management. Sometimes it's called separate paradigm, but sometimes it's within integrated water resources management, where the integration was vague in the IWRM. And in this case, this sectoral integration is explicitly mentioned, like integration of water energy and food. But it could be also water energy food climate

water energy, climate ecosystem. So it depends on the context, but the thinking of the nexus is it comes from system integration. So how the global systems are interconnected and how the traditional silo process is diminishing the importance of system level outcome. And that's why the nexus concept can. So for example, if I ask you what you have eaten in the breakfast, maybe a banana. And in that, banana is not only food, but also it incorporates huge amount of water for producing the banana, but also transportation, and also from the agricultural field to coming into the food breakfast table, it consumes huge amount of energy. And if you don't, if you waste that banana, then you can calculate how much energy and water has also been wasted from producing to, so this kind of thinking is the nexus thinking so if you can increase the efficiency of water use in one sector that can also helps increasing efficiency in the energy sector and also food sector and that that's how the water energy food nexus concept came, not only in the household perspective, not only in the urban aspect

but also in the transboundary water resources management aspect. So the nexus concept builds on many of this approaches and it also incorporates this integrated process. I already shared this article. Probably you have read this article and it's interesting because it clearly identifies the synergies and trade-offs of water resources management within water energy and food nexus and how how the incorporating nexus thinking can help increase the efficiency of water resources management. So for example, this nexus thinking can uncover synergies and co-benefits. The example that is given in the London urine separation technology that helps reducing 10% of water needs reduction, but also eventually this also helps reducing energy use in water supply by 10% and waste water treatment by 25%. So by using simple urine separation technology, this helps reducing water needs, energy needs and waste water treatment, but also it helps capturing nutrient. For example, 2,300 tons of phosphorus and 24,000 tons of nitrogen annually can be separated. That can be utilized for producing a million tons of wheat in UK. So you can see how the synergies and co-benefits can be achieved by applying this water energy food nexus approach. Also, it can detect harmful trade-off. For example, in Egypt and Spain, the water demand comparison is 75% higher than a span in Egypt. But because in Egypt, it considers gravity-oriented irrigation system, which requires a mass water. But at the same time, it can, the energy consumption is three times lower than the spend

because in Spain, it considers not the gravity irrigation, but energy driven drip irrigation systems. So if we convert the irrigation system in Egypt, then the water is saved, but at the same time, the energy and carbon dioxide production rate has increased significantly. So this kind of trade-up can be considered by considering this nexus apples. And also, I think, Jim Aver was mentioning about the biofuel. And here is the example of biofuel, how the increased consumption of biofuel is promoted as an alternative of oil and gas. But at the same time, it can create a huge amount of water scarcity and food sustainability in the United States, but also in the other countries. So the unexpected consequences can be taken into account by considering this nexus approach. So also in terms of integrated planning and decision making and governance, this order energy food nexus is very important. Let's consider the trans boundaryary aspect. So here in terms of water energy and food nexus in the trans boundary context, if you see the relation between water and food and for the food production, you must need water. And in the upstream, water uses for the agriculture can affect also in the downstream. And this can, so the water and food are highly relevant in the trans boundary context, but also food affect water resources. For example, it can through intensifying agricultural practices and land use changes by agricultural expansion, this can affect water quantity by changing the runoff

but also it can affect eutrophication and salinization and affects water quality. But at the same time, if you see the relation between water and energy, for the energy production, of course, you need water. And energy production also affects water quality and quantity. For example, the hydropower production for energy affects water quality in terms of changing water temperature and also so the water temperature can change quickly by storing water in a in a dam and that can also affect changing the water quality parameter. So thus you can see that this linkages are important for trans boundary context. In this study done by the Kaskin and Etel, they try to compare three transboundary areas in the Central Asia, mainly the Aral Sea, South Asia context, Ganges, Brahmaputro, and in the Meekong region, the Meekong River Basin. And they try to qualitatively analyze this interrelation between the water energy and food and the thickness of the line can determine how the relationship established and what are the strength of the relationships are determined by the thickness of the aligned. For example, in the case of Central Asia, the impact of food on water is highly important there, but also impact of energy production on downstream water flow is also important. In the case of South Asia

the impact of the importance of water on agricultural production between the upstream and downstream is very important. So that's how they found. So this kind of qualitative relationships for water resources management within the water energy food nexus has been established. So in terms of how the water energy food nexus is important for water diplomacy. So as you have seen that the identifying synergies and trade-offs beyond water and river basin management scale is provide an scope for water diplomacy, but also the mutual benefit and promoting value creation, the water energy food nexus, give a clear value added for water negotiation. For example, hydro power, linking hydropower, agricultural production and water management can help creating multiple benefits and multiple co-benefits and multiple value that helps order negotiation very easily. But also, Water Energy Food Nexus promote business idea and that can also link into the negotiation table and can help reducing the conflict and can can be can create an cooperative environment. So these are the ideas that water energy food nexus can support promoting the water diplomacy. That's how I see. So here is a reference. I'll put them in the canvas site. I found just recently so I can share this article so that you can have an understanding how water energy food nexus can be useful for water diplomacy and also how water diplomacy can help implementing water energy food nexus approach. Just quickly sustainable development goals. You know

the sustainable development goal has been considered in 2015 to meet the target by 2030. And in order to move from M disease to S disease, it considers 17 S disease and with 169 targets. And S disease 6 is the ensuring availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. And it incorporates SDG 6.5 that we need to implement IWRM through transboundary cooperation. So the goal 6.5 or target 6.5 specifically on implementation of IWRM for cooperation incorporating trans boundary cooperation. So here is the linkage of S-DIS and and IWRMs, but also the way IWRM is considered as an indicator, it is kind of, there is criticism on this because IWRM is very broader concept and theoretical concept but the way the IWRM is considered as UN sustainable goals, there are a strong criticism on that because it considers very vague way of putting numbers on IWRM and how they measuring the progress is very, yeah, it's very debatable. But you know, this is one of the major paradigm that internationally acknowledged and that's why IWRM is very important and also with relation to SDGs and water diplomacy. I see that many SDG goals are interlinked and it can create synergies and trade-offs. So for example, if I can meet one SDG target, for example, renewable energy production and for the renewable energy production

it's not specifically defined which kind of renewable energy can be produced. So that can promote the idea of hydroelectric electricity generation. So that can also affect implementation of IWRMs because if you promote upstream water development projects for hydroelectricity, then this can affect a relationship with the downstream countries. So this kind of synergies and trade-offs are very important and that can be reduced or that can be resolved through diplomacy approach broadly. So that's how I can see the link between the AIDS disease and and what are diplomacy aspect in in general. So that's that's we wanted to discuss today classes. So first we already discussed the evolution of water resources management, how it came from the supply side approach to the demand and decentralized approach with an example. But then we already discussed IWRM and its importance in the international water resource management aspect and its relation with the water diplomacy, but also we discussed water energy food nexus and sustainable development goals and its relation with water diplomacy. Yes, so the next class will be the week after and that class will play a-play simulation. Practically how we can resolve water conflicts. We'll play the game, Indo-Potomia, Arrival Basin Management. And for the role-play simulation, we will need nine players, but we have six players. So do you know, is there any of your friend could be interested in the roleplay simulation? If you don't find, I will try to find three other players

but yeah you have interesting colleagues that are highly interested to the to understand the role play game you can let me know yeah so another notice our announcement is that next week, Larry and me are going to talk on transbound water resources management. Larry will discuss mainly the theoretical aspect and I will describe the Bromaputro river basin case. So if you are interested you can join in this event I can share the link for the registration. It's the EU time, so it's the European time. So in US time, it could be 11, 11 a.m. or yeah. So if you are interested, you feel free to join this in this event. Yeah. Another announcement, sorry, I wanted to put in the, put it in here. There is a discussion paper on water energy and food nexus and there is a discussion series is taking place by one of our colleague, who is the editor of the journal, Water Hydrological Sciences Journal. And in that discussion paper, there is a topic on water energy and food nexus. And if you are interested, and if you feel it's fit in your area of interest, there is a paper on water quality and water energy food nexus. And if you can criticize or comment on that paper, that can also be published if this is a concise and, yeah in a written in a scientific way so I can share that link if you are interested in participating this kind of writing you can let me know I I have the link is with the editor of that journal so I can share with you if you are interested. So the write-up should be one or two page

but it should be written in a scientific way. Yeah. So I will share those two links and also I will share the role play simulation with the general instruction, but also confidential instruction for his player. I will share with you in next few days. So, bye.