The Tap's Still Running

Three months ago I began my journey into looking at a range of issues associated with exploring the impacts Climate Change is having on water. I believed that the war we were facing was a battle for resources among communities across the world and the environmental, social and political impacts this created. Having reached the end of my journey, the war runs much deeper than that.

This is not just a battle for land occupation or for fresh water supplies. This is not just a conflict over gender equality, basic human sanitation or the right to an education. This war is based on the fact that the issue of water security is not being addressed on the intergovernmental scale that it needs to be.

I remained optimistic throughout this blog that change was around the corner. I believed that we had made great progress with the Sustainable Development Goals, and that we were on track to dealing with such a prominent issue at risk of affecting us all. Although disheartened, I will forever remain a “prisoner of hope”. But in order for this battle to be won, the goal posts must be changed. It is vital that we hold governments accountable for the promises they have made at the recent climate summit, and that we never stop pressing for the basic human right we all deserve.

Although addressing water issues has come a long since the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals, we must continue the fight to ensure everyone, everywhere is water secure. 

COP21

Since it is the beginning of the New Year, I thought I would recap on the last and summarise a very important event that 2015 will no doubt be remembered for. COP21.

The world signed its first legally binding universal deal to tackle Climate Change by committing to keep global temperature rise below 2°C! Hurrah! Whilst this deal is a huge step in the right direction to ensuring climate justice, alarm bells rung when I glanced over the final adopted text... there was no mention of water.

Looking back, it seems ironic that the very inspiration for this blog is fundamentally being ignored on the biggest scale of all. If I’m honest, I was surprised. After a fantastic year for water with the adoption of Goal 6 as part of the Sustainable Development Goals, I remained optimistic that Paris would address a range of issues on freshwater resources and their management. The IPCC report (2013) summarised that semi-arid and arid areas were in particular danger as there was high confidence that their water resources would suffer. This, coupled with the high confidence that groundwater recharge is decreasing, will leave these regions under great water-stress. In addition, with rising populations putting greater pressures on the fight for resources, these countries are the ones that will feel the full effects of Climate Change the most. 

With such great confidence on the impacts Climate Change is having on water resources, I find myself asking why we haven’t taken the management steps on a global scale to address these issues. Whilst COP21 may have been deemed a success and the first step to the end of the fossil fuel era, we are still a long way from dealing with the stresses being placed on our water resources. 

Top Down vs. Bottom Up

How does the old saying go again? “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.” The importance of grassroots programmes has never been more apparent in an age where the rich and poor are growing further apart. Climate Change is having the greatest social, political and environmental impacts on the world’s poorest, so what is the best way of tackling these issues? Are grassroots enough to get the job done, and ultimately avoid conflict?

Grassroots programmes offer the opportunity to make a difference in areas which otherwise may receive no attention. Take Africa for example. This region of the world has done the least to contribute to climate change, however will be impacted the greatest (APP, 2015). It is therefore vital that programmes such as the Village Water Project are set up. 17 successful wells have been built from 2009 to 2014; providing nearly 4,000 people with clean, disease-free water. However, it is more than just water for these people. Communities are encouraged to work together to develop in a sustainable way, empowering them and giving them the means to fend for themselves. There are many benefits of this on women, as discussed in my previous post, as well as agricultural benefits and additionally reducing potential conflict over water boundaries. 

Both Kisilu and Sawadogo are great examples of how an individual can make a difference through community action. However, what is the likelihood of these projects succeeding on such a small scale? How necessary is the intervention from big co-operations? With the Global Goals having such a focus on Climate Change and WASH this year, the answer is pretty obvious. At the end of the day it is global policy and decision-makers which are in the driving seat to carry these through and make 'real' change in the world; the kind of change that is going to make a global difference in combating climate action. However, let us not discourage the efforts of such grassroots projects. Great change has to begin somewhere. 

"Water is at the heart of Climate Change"

Climate is Water COP21 from Arup Visual Communications on Vimeo.

A concise summary video from Arup outlining why water is so important when it comes to climate agreements.

The Gender Issue

Women bear the brunt of climate related issues on the water cycle (Source: WaterAid) 

In my previous blog post I briefly looked at the areas of the world that were experiencing both physical and economic water scarcity. Competition for water resources is increasing, mainly due to the increasing pressures from agriculture, industry and the environment. Those people that will be the worst affected by these pressures are the poor and within this group, it is women that end up paying the price.

Two thirds of the worlds 1.2 billion poor people are women (IFAD, 2012). Amber Fletcher described these women as “invisible food producers” in her most recent TEDx talk in July 2015. Being the optimist I am, this concept is unsettling. The point she was making was that farmers are stereotypically thought of as male and therefore created an invisible connection between the problem and the solution. This problem however, has been outlined in a United Nations sponsored report by the International Fund for Agricultural Development.

The gender issue has been recognised as one that needs to be addressed in this sector as women play such a vital role in securing water for both agricultural and domestic purposes. In many communities it is seen as their responsibility to keep sanitation facilities in order, along with the daily collection of drinking water from local wells. They have developed great knowledge over crop production and water resources through first hand experiences, yet there is an ever-growing gap between policy and practice. Although the problem has been discussed by such organisations, governance has still not given women the recognition they deserve, as they still remain excluded from decision-making.

With Climate Change putting increasing pressures on water resources, it is no doubt that women will be at the forefront of this. With increased floods and droughts, adequate drinking resources are being tampered with. Women will need to travel further to collect water, taking valuable time out of their days; impacting potential time spent on an education. Sadly, this journey has also jeopardised women’s safety, as cases of violence have unofficially been reported in South Sudan. Additionally a study by Neumayer and Plümper (2007) found that natural disasters, especially those heightened by a changing climate, would result in the death of more women than men.

Accepting that there is a gender issue is the first step. The second would be to focus more efforts on tackling the issues associated with the inequality, and third, empowering women with responsibility over water resources they already possess great knowledge over. If it’s as easy as one, two, three, then why has this not happened yet? Why are we still seeing such a disparity between the effects on men and women? Climate Change is happening now, and we have a social responsibility to women across the world to tackle these humanitarian rights immediately. 

Stress vs. Scarcity

Source: Global physical and economic water scarcity (2007) 

In order to determine those areas which are most vulnerable to water insecurity, it is important to distinguish between some key terms. Water stress is a measure of availability and is referred to when annual water supplies drops below 1,700m³ per person for any given area. When this figure reaches below 1,000m³, the issue becomes one of access and the region is then said to experience water scarcity (WWAP, 2012). 

This map from the UN splits water scarcity up into physical scarcity and economic scarcity. Physical water scarcity refers to when water resources have exceeded their sustainable limits; this does not necessarily mean that dry areas are therefore physically water scarce in this sense. Economic water scarcity refers to the financial capability to extract water from a particular area; therefore some areas may be abundant in water supplies but may not have the means to use this water.  

It may be easier to determine which regions are experiencing water stress due to the quantified definition, however when discussing scarcity it becomes somewhat more difficult. Although there is a threshold of 1,000m³,  the extent of which regions experience physical and economic scarcity are changing all the time, and so defining those regions experiencing this can sometimes be difficult. At present, one third of the world's population is experiencing some kind of physical or economic water scarcity.

The race for what's left

With the world’s population reaching 7.3 billion people this year, there is no doubt that new pressures are being put on nation’s natural resources. One of these major pressures is land space and the water resources associated with them. As a result “land-grabs” have been a new phase of foreign direct investment, especially within African farmland (Allan, 2013). Even though most countries have the space to be potentially food self-sufficient, they do not necessarily have enough water to do so. Therefore, areas such as Sub-Saharan Africa, are leasing land at reduced prices to countries such as China, India and Saudi Arabia (Ananthaswamy, 2011). This dash for resources may appear to be a suitable solution, however could lead to potential conflicts between nations.

Over a period of 5 years, Saudi Arabia leased 376,000 hectares of land in Sudan in order to grow food to be exported back to their homeland. This is a relatively cheap solution as it costs less than developed irrigation systems. However I find myself asking, why don’t these countries just import the food they need? Suweis et.al (2011) suggests that due to the complexity of trade markets, the driving forces of an increasing population and increased economic development, is forcing these water-poor countries to increase their security. In a changing world, leasing land at a fixed price is not subject to the market forces of food supply and therefore ensuring those at the top, stay there.

With the rich getting richer and solutions to potential water conflict being resolved short-term, are there any adverse long-term effects that may result? D’Odorico et.al (2010) suggests that these land-grabs within the virtual water network may result in societies becoming less resilient to severe droughts. This exploitation of otherwise unused supplies could dry-up resulting in catastrophic consequences in the future. With Climate Change increasing the likelihood of severe droughts occurring, tensions will rise as the fight for land may see these big players at the top looking for alternative solutions to the problem sooner than they originally thought.

Source: Chris Madden