- Email: [email protected]
Water Policy Supplement 2nd World Water Forum: Session Reports
Water Policy 3 (2001) S1–S5
Editorial Water Policy Supplement 2nd World Water Forum: Session Reports Rapporteur: F.R. Rijsberman1
Introduction The World Water Vision process and the 2nd World Water Forum hardly need introduction to the readers of Water Policy, the official journal of the Word Water Council. The plans for the Vision and Forum process were published in this same journal when the process was still in its early stages (Cosgrove & Rijsberman, 1998). This introduction aims to provide some background to the material in this issue and brings out some of the key issues. It also provides context for the readers less familiar with the process and the overall conclusions of the Forum. This special issue of Water Policy provides the reader with over fifty reports of the ninety-odd sessions that were held at the Forum in The Hague in March 2000. The session reportsFthough briefFprovide deep and detailed inside in what was discussed at the many, many discussions that were going on in parallel. In fact, one of the complaints of Forum participants was that there were so many interesting sessions going on that it was impossible not to miss sessions one would have liked to attend. In some ways, this report may serve as a substitute for those who missed sessions. In other ways it provides a record of what went on and what was discussed. Some of the session reports do give conflicting messages and that is only what could be expected from the extremely varied groups involved. This, then, does not constitute an official report of the Forum, as accepted by all its participants. The official report of the Forum was published earlier in this same journal (HRH the Prince of Orange and Rijsberman, 2000). The other official record is the declaration that was agreed on by the participants in the Ministerial Conference that went on in parallel, and in interaction with the Forum, at the same venue (World Water Council, 2000, p. 25–28). The session reports were largely produced during the Forum by the Session Rapporteurs. The Session Rapporteurs were briefed in advance by, and had received rather strict guidelines from, the Forum Rapporteur. All were told to provide brief, maximum three-page, reports within 24 hours after their session ended. They were asked not to reproduce the program or lists of speakers and functionaries but to focus on: 1. what was presented; 2. what was discussed; 1
Rapporteur of the 2nd World Water Forum and former Deputy Director of the World Water Vision Management Unit. Currently, Director General of the International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka ([email protected]; http://www.iwmi.org).
PII: S 1 3 6 6 - 7 0 1 7 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 1 6 - 2
S2
Editorial / Water Policy 3 (2001) S1–S5
3. conclusions that were reached; and 4. actions that were recommended, if any. The Session Rapporteurs did an impressive job and many of them did indeed produce a report at very short notice and conforming to the guidelines. The Forum Rapporteur edited those reports on the spot, focusing both on language and the guidelines. All Session Reports that were submitted in time, could be edited in time and uploaded in time, were posted on the Forum website during the meeting. The Session Reports were also used by the Forum Rapporteur to prepare the daily Forum reports, and reports of the Forum to the Ministerial Conference that were delivered by the Forum Chairman, HRH the Prince of Orange. Some, limited, comments and feedback were received in response to the web-posted reports. Several reports were adapted by the Session Rapporteurs as a result. Following the Forum the Session reportsFincluding those received later than those posted on the websiteFwere edited more thoroughly. The result, I believe, is an interesting set of brief reports that do convey a realisticFthough incompleteFimpression of the discussions at the Forum. Organisation of the reports The reports are organized in this volume to bring together discussions on similar or complementary subjects, rather than to reflect the Forum program.
Global Visions and Actions The first section, Global Visions and Actions, contains six reports on the discussion sessions of the global scale Vision and Framework for Action and the four global sector visions. The Panel discussion in the Vision report session (Cosgrove & Rijsberman, 2000) concluded that: The ‘‘Vision’’ scenario presented in the ‘‘World Water Vision’’ document has been recognised as a balanced and preferred path for the water management in the 21st century (Strzepek, this Volume). It is worth knowing, however, that this was not a general sentiment at the Forum. In fact, representatives of non-governmental organisations and trade unions, in their statement to the Ministerial Conference, rejected the Report of the World Water Commission (Serageldin, 2000) and the Vision document produced by the World Water Council and expressed serious concerns about the process and contents of the Framework for Action document. The same statement endorsed the sector vision on water supply and sanitationFWater for PeopleFbecause of the bottom-up participatory manner in which it was prepared (see report of Appleton, this volume). In the view of some, the whole debate in the Forum on the desirable approach to the management of water resources can be reduced to that between those for and against globalization. Those in favor of globalization supposedly favor privatization, economic valuation of water and the power of the global market. Those against globalization supposedly favor human rights, pluralism and democratic accountability. One thing that can be said about the 2nd World Water Forum is that this globalization debate in fact took place within the wallsFand programFof the meeting itself, rather than between the protestors on the outside and the official participants on the inside. The views ‘‘against globalization’’ are expressed in, for instance, the
Editorial / Water Policy 3 (2001) S1–S5
S3
report on the Global Water Contract session (4.4) and in some of the reports in the section ‘‘Views from Key Stakeholders’’. While those arguing against ‘‘the official documents’’ have good points where they argue for the need to involve more people from outside the water sector, it would be sad if the discussion on how to move forward became simplified to the globalization issue. In fact, of the three scenarios prepared as part of the Vision processF(1) Business-as-Usual, (2) Technology, Economics and the Private Sector, and (3) Values and LifestylesFthe second one could reasonably be said to represent the globalization arguments. The Vision analysis shows that this scenario would indeed have unacceptable impacts in terms of the large numbers of poor people and poor nations that would not achieve water security. For this reason the Vision espoused in the ‘‘official Vision document’’ (Cosgrove & Rijsberman, 2000) is in fact a fourth scenario, ‘‘the Vision’’ which has most in common with the Values and Lifestyles scenario, but with even greater emphasis on achieving water security for all.
Views of key stakeholders This section contains seven reports of discussions in the Forum of stakeholder groups. These complement the five so-called Major Group reports that were presented by stakeholder representatives to the Ministerial Conference. The Major Group reports are published in the report prepared by the World Water Council that deals largely with the overall Forum process and Ministerial Conference outputs (World Water Council, 2000). The undercurrent in a number of the reportsFon gender issues, indigenous peoples, youth, community based managementFis that the groups concerned feel under-represented in the debate on how water resources should be managed. The positive conclusion is that all groups feel that they have something to offer to manage water more sustainably and demand their seat at the table. Another strongly held view from various groups, most clearly expressed in the report on community based management (Khurana, this Volume) is that ‘‘there is no water scarcity; what exists is water mismanagement’’. That, in fact, is very close to the view expressed in the ‘‘official Vision document’’ that the water crisis is not a matter of having insufficient water resources to meet the needs of people as well as the environment, but a matter of managing water so badly that people and the environment suffer (Cosgrove & Rijsberman, 2000).
Regional visions and actions Whereas the global focus of the first two sections makes the issues rather abstract, the eighteen regional reports focus much more sharply on regional and local issues. The reports vary from the long report on the day in the Forum on North- Central- South America and the Caribbean, prepared by Griesinger and Moody (this Volume) some time after the Forum. It reports on a years-long process covering many meetings and a large number of preparatory activities in advance of the Forum. Most of the regional Visions and Framework for Action sessions presented and discussed a regional visioning process that has involved many people and many meetings within their region. Some of the sessions were different and discussed a particular project
S4
Editorial / Water Policy 3 (2001) S1–S5
(e.g. report 2.6 on the Southern Anatolia project) or a rather special region such as the Polar region. Reading the reports on the regional discussions provides the best evidence that somewhere along the line the World Water Vision process became self-propelled. It was taken up by various regional groups as a good means to address their issuesFbut completely on their own terms, rather than in a top-down approach. In fact, writing this Introduction some eight months after the Forum took place I can report to have been pleasantly surprised on a number of occasions since March 2000. While visiting widely divergent countries, often making a general Vision-related presentation, people came up to me and said ‘‘Did you know we have prepared a national Vision here/started a Vision follow-up project/created a national partnership to continue the Vision process nationally?’’. At the center of the Vision process we have for two years encouraged people to take the process up. It is very satisfactory to see and hear firsthand that our stone in the pond created such widespread ripples.
Law, ethics and conflict Eight reports in this section focus on international as well as national law, ethics and human rights, sovereignty over water and the relation with conflicts or conflict prevention. One message that comes out is that, echoing similar sentiments described in the first sections, since water scarcity is a matter of managing the resource rather than lack of it, the solution will have to do with human values and ethics (Otchet, this Volume). As Otchet writes: ‘‘new ethics must be based on a balance between traditional human values regarding conservation and the use of new technological advances; rarely have either worked alone and it is time to stop characterizing them as one versus the other’’. A second important message in this section, expressed in a number of session reports, is that water is less a source of conflict between nations than it is a potential source of cooperation. Water wars are not likely to break out. Cooperation among nations on water issues can be difficult, but has been shown in very difficult situations, such as in the Middle East, to be more of an engine to drive cooperation than a stumbling block. Possibly more important conflicts over water than those threatening war can arise out of the competition for water among users, within basins, regions or nations. More examples of that are provided in the following section.
Water uses and issues The final section on water uses and issues covers 15 reports. There are two reports dealing with dams. One organized by the World Commission on Dams and one by the professional associations dealing with dams. They offer rather different perspectives on this issue that has been a flashpoint for protestors and possibly the most conflict-prone aspect of water resources development. The process organized by the World Commission on Dams is now drawing to a close and has produced a report in November 2000. The positions reflected in the session report were therefore still tentative. Even though the participatory process set up by the Dams commission did not satisfy all involved, it certainly is a helpful contribution towards creating an
Editorial / Water Policy 3 (2001) S1–S5
S5
atmosphere of dialogue. The urgent need for that speaks from a number of the session reports in this volume. The session contains a wealth of information on subjects that most water professionals do not deal with regularlyFsuch as water and history or water and space. Still, the conclusion in the session report on water and history concluded that there is much in history that provides lessons for the management of our water systems today and in the future (Dolfing, this Volume). It also states that management of water systems, be it irrigation, drainage or flood control, is inextricably linked with the building and development of society and state. Somewhere in the past weFwater professionalsFseem to have lost that link and developed into a specialist profession; responsible for managing water. Re-introducing all other stakeholders back into the water management process was a major goal of the World Water Vision. Those concerned with water management should not remain limited to the professionals. What we need is a water ‘‘movement’’, not unlike the environmental movement. A movement that needs little formal organisation or designated leaders, but a movement that contributes towards Making Water Everybody’s Business. References Cosgrove, W. J., & Rijsberman, F. R. (1998). Creating a vision for water, life and the environment. Water Policy, 1, 115–122. Cosgrove, W. J., & Rijsberman, F. R. (2000). For the World Water Council. World Water Vision: Making water everybodys business: London: Earthscan. Rijsberman, F. R. (2000). HRH The prince of orange and summary report of the 2nd world water forum: From vision to action. Water Policy, 2(6), 387–396. Serageldin, I. (2000). A report of the World Commission on Water for the 21st Century. Water International, 25(2), 284–302. World Water Council (2000). Final Report: Second world water forum & ministerial conference. Water Management Unit, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Netherlands: The Hague.
Frank R. Rijsberman World Water Vision, UNESCO, Division of Water Science, 75732 Paris, Cedex 15, France E-mail address: [email protected]
Editorial Water Policy Supplement 2nd World Water Forum: Session Reports Rapporteur: F.R. Rijsberman1
Introduction The World Water Vision process and the 2nd World Water Forum hardly need introduction to the readers of Water Policy, the official journal of the Word Water Council. The plans for the Vision and Forum process were published in this same journal when the process was still in its early stages (Cosgrove & Rijsberman, 1998). This introduction aims to provide some background to the material in this issue and brings out some of the key issues. It also provides context for the readers less familiar with the process and the overall conclusions of the Forum. This special issue of Water Policy provides the reader with over fifty reports of the ninety-odd sessions that were held at the Forum in The Hague in March 2000. The session reportsFthough briefFprovide deep and detailed inside in what was discussed at the many, many discussions that were going on in parallel. In fact, one of the complaints of Forum participants was that there were so many interesting sessions going on that it was impossible not to miss sessions one would have liked to attend. In some ways, this report may serve as a substitute for those who missed sessions. In other ways it provides a record of what went on and what was discussed. Some of the session reports do give conflicting messages and that is only what could be expected from the extremely varied groups involved. This, then, does not constitute an official report of the Forum, as accepted by all its participants. The official report of the Forum was published earlier in this same journal (HRH the Prince of Orange and Rijsberman, 2000). The other official record is the declaration that was agreed on by the participants in the Ministerial Conference that went on in parallel, and in interaction with the Forum, at the same venue (World Water Council, 2000, p. 25–28). The session reports were largely produced during the Forum by the Session Rapporteurs. The Session Rapporteurs were briefed in advance by, and had received rather strict guidelines from, the Forum Rapporteur. All were told to provide brief, maximum three-page, reports within 24 hours after their session ended. They were asked not to reproduce the program or lists of speakers and functionaries but to focus on: 1. what was presented; 2. what was discussed; 1
Rapporteur of the 2nd World Water Forum and former Deputy Director of the World Water Vision Management Unit. Currently, Director General of the International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka ([email protected]; http://www.iwmi.org).
PII: S 1 3 6 6 - 7 0 1 7 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 1 6 - 2
S2
Editorial / Water Policy 3 (2001) S1–S5
3. conclusions that were reached; and 4. actions that were recommended, if any. The Session Rapporteurs did an impressive job and many of them did indeed produce a report at very short notice and conforming to the guidelines. The Forum Rapporteur edited those reports on the spot, focusing both on language and the guidelines. All Session Reports that were submitted in time, could be edited in time and uploaded in time, were posted on the Forum website during the meeting. The Session Reports were also used by the Forum Rapporteur to prepare the daily Forum reports, and reports of the Forum to the Ministerial Conference that were delivered by the Forum Chairman, HRH the Prince of Orange. Some, limited, comments and feedback were received in response to the web-posted reports. Several reports were adapted by the Session Rapporteurs as a result. Following the Forum the Session reportsFincluding those received later than those posted on the websiteFwere edited more thoroughly. The result, I believe, is an interesting set of brief reports that do convey a realisticFthough incompleteFimpression of the discussions at the Forum. Organisation of the reports The reports are organized in this volume to bring together discussions on similar or complementary subjects, rather than to reflect the Forum program.
Global Visions and Actions The first section, Global Visions and Actions, contains six reports on the discussion sessions of the global scale Vision and Framework for Action and the four global sector visions. The Panel discussion in the Vision report session (Cosgrove & Rijsberman, 2000) concluded that: The ‘‘Vision’’ scenario presented in the ‘‘World Water Vision’’ document has been recognised as a balanced and preferred path for the water management in the 21st century (Strzepek, this Volume). It is worth knowing, however, that this was not a general sentiment at the Forum. In fact, representatives of non-governmental organisations and trade unions, in their statement to the Ministerial Conference, rejected the Report of the World Water Commission (Serageldin, 2000) and the Vision document produced by the World Water Council and expressed serious concerns about the process and contents of the Framework for Action document. The same statement endorsed the sector vision on water supply and sanitationFWater for PeopleFbecause of the bottom-up participatory manner in which it was prepared (see report of Appleton, this volume). In the view of some, the whole debate in the Forum on the desirable approach to the management of water resources can be reduced to that between those for and against globalization. Those in favor of globalization supposedly favor privatization, economic valuation of water and the power of the global market. Those against globalization supposedly favor human rights, pluralism and democratic accountability. One thing that can be said about the 2nd World Water Forum is that this globalization debate in fact took place within the wallsFand programFof the meeting itself, rather than between the protestors on the outside and the official participants on the inside. The views ‘‘against globalization’’ are expressed in, for instance, the
Editorial / Water Policy 3 (2001) S1–S5
S3
report on the Global Water Contract session (4.4) and in some of the reports in the section ‘‘Views from Key Stakeholders’’. While those arguing against ‘‘the official documents’’ have good points where they argue for the need to involve more people from outside the water sector, it would be sad if the discussion on how to move forward became simplified to the globalization issue. In fact, of the three scenarios prepared as part of the Vision processF(1) Business-as-Usual, (2) Technology, Economics and the Private Sector, and (3) Values and LifestylesFthe second one could reasonably be said to represent the globalization arguments. The Vision analysis shows that this scenario would indeed have unacceptable impacts in terms of the large numbers of poor people and poor nations that would not achieve water security. For this reason the Vision espoused in the ‘‘official Vision document’’ (Cosgrove & Rijsberman, 2000) is in fact a fourth scenario, ‘‘the Vision’’ which has most in common with the Values and Lifestyles scenario, but with even greater emphasis on achieving water security for all.
Views of key stakeholders This section contains seven reports of discussions in the Forum of stakeholder groups. These complement the five so-called Major Group reports that were presented by stakeholder representatives to the Ministerial Conference. The Major Group reports are published in the report prepared by the World Water Council that deals largely with the overall Forum process and Ministerial Conference outputs (World Water Council, 2000). The undercurrent in a number of the reportsFon gender issues, indigenous peoples, youth, community based managementFis that the groups concerned feel under-represented in the debate on how water resources should be managed. The positive conclusion is that all groups feel that they have something to offer to manage water more sustainably and demand their seat at the table. Another strongly held view from various groups, most clearly expressed in the report on community based management (Khurana, this Volume) is that ‘‘there is no water scarcity; what exists is water mismanagement’’. That, in fact, is very close to the view expressed in the ‘‘official Vision document’’ that the water crisis is not a matter of having insufficient water resources to meet the needs of people as well as the environment, but a matter of managing water so badly that people and the environment suffer (Cosgrove & Rijsberman, 2000).
Regional visions and actions Whereas the global focus of the first two sections makes the issues rather abstract, the eighteen regional reports focus much more sharply on regional and local issues. The reports vary from the long report on the day in the Forum on North- Central- South America and the Caribbean, prepared by Griesinger and Moody (this Volume) some time after the Forum. It reports on a years-long process covering many meetings and a large number of preparatory activities in advance of the Forum. Most of the regional Visions and Framework for Action sessions presented and discussed a regional visioning process that has involved many people and many meetings within their region. Some of the sessions were different and discussed a particular project
S4
Editorial / Water Policy 3 (2001) S1–S5
(e.g. report 2.6 on the Southern Anatolia project) or a rather special region such as the Polar region. Reading the reports on the regional discussions provides the best evidence that somewhere along the line the World Water Vision process became self-propelled. It was taken up by various regional groups as a good means to address their issuesFbut completely on their own terms, rather than in a top-down approach. In fact, writing this Introduction some eight months after the Forum took place I can report to have been pleasantly surprised on a number of occasions since March 2000. While visiting widely divergent countries, often making a general Vision-related presentation, people came up to me and said ‘‘Did you know we have prepared a national Vision here/started a Vision follow-up project/created a national partnership to continue the Vision process nationally?’’. At the center of the Vision process we have for two years encouraged people to take the process up. It is very satisfactory to see and hear firsthand that our stone in the pond created such widespread ripples.
Law, ethics and conflict Eight reports in this section focus on international as well as national law, ethics and human rights, sovereignty over water and the relation with conflicts or conflict prevention. One message that comes out is that, echoing similar sentiments described in the first sections, since water scarcity is a matter of managing the resource rather than lack of it, the solution will have to do with human values and ethics (Otchet, this Volume). As Otchet writes: ‘‘new ethics must be based on a balance between traditional human values regarding conservation and the use of new technological advances; rarely have either worked alone and it is time to stop characterizing them as one versus the other’’. A second important message in this section, expressed in a number of session reports, is that water is less a source of conflict between nations than it is a potential source of cooperation. Water wars are not likely to break out. Cooperation among nations on water issues can be difficult, but has been shown in very difficult situations, such as in the Middle East, to be more of an engine to drive cooperation than a stumbling block. Possibly more important conflicts over water than those threatening war can arise out of the competition for water among users, within basins, regions or nations. More examples of that are provided in the following section.
Water uses and issues The final section on water uses and issues covers 15 reports. There are two reports dealing with dams. One organized by the World Commission on Dams and one by the professional associations dealing with dams. They offer rather different perspectives on this issue that has been a flashpoint for protestors and possibly the most conflict-prone aspect of water resources development. The process organized by the World Commission on Dams is now drawing to a close and has produced a report in November 2000. The positions reflected in the session report were therefore still tentative. Even though the participatory process set up by the Dams commission did not satisfy all involved, it certainly is a helpful contribution towards creating an
Editorial / Water Policy 3 (2001) S1–S5
S5
atmosphere of dialogue. The urgent need for that speaks from a number of the session reports in this volume. The session contains a wealth of information on subjects that most water professionals do not deal with regularlyFsuch as water and history or water and space. Still, the conclusion in the session report on water and history concluded that there is much in history that provides lessons for the management of our water systems today and in the future (Dolfing, this Volume). It also states that management of water systems, be it irrigation, drainage or flood control, is inextricably linked with the building and development of society and state. Somewhere in the past weFwater professionalsFseem to have lost that link and developed into a specialist profession; responsible for managing water. Re-introducing all other stakeholders back into the water management process was a major goal of the World Water Vision. Those concerned with water management should not remain limited to the professionals. What we need is a water ‘‘movement’’, not unlike the environmental movement. A movement that needs little formal organisation or designated leaders, but a movement that contributes towards Making Water Everybody’s Business. References Cosgrove, W. J., & Rijsberman, F. R. (1998). Creating a vision for water, life and the environment. Water Policy, 1, 115–122. Cosgrove, W. J., & Rijsberman, F. R. (2000). For the World Water Council. World Water Vision: Making water everybodys business: London: Earthscan. Rijsberman, F. R. (2000). HRH The prince of orange and summary report of the 2nd world water forum: From vision to action. Water Policy, 2(6), 387–396. Serageldin, I. (2000). A report of the World Commission on Water for the 21st Century. Water International, 25(2), 284–302. World Water Council (2000). Final Report: Second world water forum & ministerial conference. Water Management Unit, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Netherlands: The Hague.
Frank R. Rijsberman World Water Vision, UNESCO, Division of Water Science, 75732 Paris, Cedex 15, France E-mail address: [email protected]