WaterWired

Blue Peace Index 2019: New EIU Report Highlights Critical Gaps and Best Practices in Transboundary Water Co-operation

This morning I received an email from a representative of The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). The graphic was uploaded by me.

The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) is releasing a report tomorrow that examines the critical threats to the world’s freshwater supplies as a result of global transboundary cooperation.

The report finds that the Transboundary river basins – which supply the world with half of its freshwater flows – are run by ineffective water management bodies. With over 50% of the world’s population expected to be living in water-scarce regions by the year 2050, the EUI’s Blue Peace Index studies the challenges and the potential for conflict that water basin regions face. Several regions, such as the Tigris-Euphrates River Basin, are at particular risk of escalating conflicts over scarce water resources.

We believe that the report’s troubling findings are of vital importance to your readerships and are pleased to offer an exclusive on its contents. Please find the full press release below which is embargoed until 00:01 GMT Thursday 22 August and the full report attached. [Note: I am uploading this at about 02:00 GMT 22 August 2019.]

Please do let me know if you have any questions about this story or if you would like to speak to Matus Samel, lead author of the Blue Peace Index at The EIU.

Download Blue_Peace_Index_2019_Report_FINAL

What follows is the press release included in the email. Graphics scattered throughout the release are from the report and were uploaded by me.

Blue Peace Index 2019: New EIU report highlights critical gaps and best practices in transboundary water co-operation

• By 2050 more than 50% of the world’s population will live in water-scarce regions
• Transboundary river basins provide freshwater flows for over 40% of the world population, yetless than a third of these basins have joint water management bodies—and those that do exist are often ineffective
• Several regions, such as the Tigris-Euphrates River Basin, are at particular risk of escalating conflicts over scarce water resources
• Transboundary water co-operation can prevent such conflict and help countries reap economic, environmental and political benefits, even in challenging post-conflict regions, as demonstrated by the Sava River Basin 
• The Blue Peace Index examines how well countries and basins manage their transboundary water resources, and highlights priority gaps to address and best practices policymakers and practitioners can learn from

Rising stress on global freshwater poses significant challenges for agriculture, industry, energy generation, and domestic drinking and sanitation across the globe. Less than 3% of the world’s water supply is freshwater. Yet the demand for water continues to grow by approximately 1% per year. By 2050 the world’s growing demand for freshwater could put 45% of the world’s global GDP and 40% of its grain production at risk.

Transboundary river basins provide more than half of the world’s freshwater flow and are home to 40% of the world’s population. Yet, as the index addresses, there is a worrying absence of collaboration structures to govern these critical resources. A lack of co-operation can have considerable economic, social and environmental consequences.

The Blue Peace Index 2019, developed by The Economist Intelligence Unit with support from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, addresses the importance of transboundary co-operation on water management for stability and sustainable development. This can be in the form of shared institutions and legal frameworks bringing countries together in a commitment to resolve differences peacefully, and to use their shared water as a foundation for wider economic and diplomatic collaboration. The gains of transboundary water co-operation vary from reduced flooding and drought and protected biodiversity through to enhanced energy security and optimisation of investments.

The index examines the extent to which countries and basins are managing their shared water resources in a sustainable, equitable and collaborative manner. In its first edition, the index analyses 24 countries across five transboundary river basins on 74 qualitative and quantitative indicators.

·    The Amazon River Basin: There are relatively strong water management institutions, low water stress and actively engaged stakeholders in the Amazon River Basin, on both a national and transboundary level, but it is challenged by a lack of co-ordinated investment programmes and needs to improve co-ordinated pollution control mechanisms.

·          The Senegal River Basin: Strong institutions have been developed on the basis of a comprehensive cross-boundary agreement, but the Senegal River Basin suffers from a difficult natural environment, which jeopardises food security and access to local drinking water.

·    The Tigris-Euphrates River Basin: This basin faces considerable challenges across all index areas. The political and environmental context is particularly challenging and has resulted in almost non-existent regional co-operation. This difficult environment has far-reaching consequences, challenging access to water and negatively impacting pollution control.

·   The Mekong River Basin: Strong technical institutions have been developed to manage transboundary water in the Mekong River Basin but it lacks co-ordinated political decision-making. The absence of a single river management institution that includes critical upstream countries China and Myanmar presents significant challenges to sustainable water management in the basin.

·   The Sava River Basin: This basin has seen strong co-operation mechanisms developed in a difficult post-conflict situation and it represents best practice in many of the transboundary water co-operation areas. Nevertheless, it still lacks comprehensive mechanisms to engage stakeholders and co-ordinate investment activities.

Matus Samel, lead author of the Blue Peace Index at The Economist Intelligence Unit, said: “Water management and transboundary water co-operation can affect people’s fundamental rights and livelihoods. If we do not address these challenges, balancing the needs of different communities, individual disputes can evolve into long-term conflicts. Water can be weaponised but can also be a tool for co-operation, even in the most difficult contexts. The Blue Peace Index allows us to start conversations and keep this critical issue on the global agenda.”

I have given this a brief read and liked what I read. Groundwater and aquifers were even mentioned! I would have like to have seen a case study dealing solely with a groundwater basin. When surface freshwater desiccates, conflict over groundwater - transnational/transboundary and otherwise - will ensue.

Enjoy!

"Always remember that you are absolutely unique. Just like everyone else." - Margaret Mead

Paper: 'The Water Relations in Central Asia Dataset (WRCAD)' - An Online Tool

More Central Asia!

A few days ago I posted information about a 2018 book by Filippo Menga, Power and Water in Central Asia.

Since then I discovered a 2016 paper of his,The ‘Water Relations in Central Asia Dataset’ (WRCAD). It is billed as an online tool for researchers, practitioners and students. Looks like something very useful. 

Download The_Water_Relations_in_Central_Asia_Data

Abstract
The aim of this paper is to present the Water Relations in Central Asia Dataset (WRCAD, http://wrcad.info/), a new, open-access dataset specifically conceived to analyse transboundary water relations among the countries of the Aral Sea basin in Central Asia in the period 1991-2013. Following a methodological section that explains how the empirical material was collected and categorised, the paper illustrates the evolution of interstate relations in the basin discussing some of the key issues and trends that emerge from the dataset.

The graphic is from the European Parliament: Water in Central Asia: An Increasingly Scarce Resource.

Enjoy!

"A narcissist is someone better looking than you are." - Gore Vidal (quoted in @Forbes via @TheWeek)

Book: 'Power and Water in Central Asia'

I just received a notice about Filippo Menga's (University of Reading) 2018 book, Power and Water in Central Asia. Looks fascinating.

Here is a description from the book's Routledge site:

Water is an irreplaceable and transient resource, which crosses political boundaries in the form of rivers, lakes, and groundwater aquifers. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, led to the birth of fifteen countries including the five Central Asian republics, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. When the USSR ceased to exist, so did the centralised Soviet resource distribution system that managed the exchange and allocation of water, energy, and food supplies. A whole new set of international relations emerged, and the newly formed Central Asian governments had to redefine the policies related to the exchange and sharing of their natural resources.

This book analyses the role of state power in transboundary water relations. It provides an in–depth study of the evolution of interstate relations in Central Asia in the field of water from 1991-2015. Taking as a case study the planned construction of the Rogun and Kambarata dams in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, the author examines various forms of overt and covert power shaping interstate relations and the way hegemonic and counter-hegemonic measures are put in place in an international river basin. He argues that the intimate correlation between the concepts of power and hegemony can offer key insights to the analysis and understanding of transboundary water relations. While the analytical focus is placed on state power, the book demonstrates that hegemonic and counter-hegemonic tactics represent the ways in which power is wielded and observed.

Offering fresh theoretical interpretations to the subjects of power and counter-hegemony in the Aral Sea basin, this book puts forward the original circle of hydro-hegemony, an analytical framework in which the various forms of power are connective in the function of hegemony. It will be of interest to scholars in the field of water and environmental politics and Central Asian Studies.

Here is part of Chapter 1:

Download Power_and_Water_in_Central_Asia_Routledge

Be sure to read the section, 'Why Central Asia?'

Enjoy!

"Don't be absurd. Your office isn't the size of a veal pen. It's the size of four veal pens -- a solid 5 square meters!" - @ass_deans

CRS Report: 'Changes in the Arctic - Background and Issues for Congress' Updated: 2 August 2019

This CRS report has been updated a number of times. Here is the latest update (2 August 2019): Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke, Laura B. Comay, Peter Folger, John Frittelli, Marc Humphries, Jane A. Leggett, Jonathan L. Ramseur, Pervaze A. Sheikh and Harold F. Upton.

Download CRS_Changes_Arctic_2August2019

Introduction

The diminishment of Arctic sea ice has led to increased human activities in the Arctic, and has heightened interest in, and concerns about, the region’s future. Issues such as Arctic territorial disputes; commercial shipping through the Arctic; Arctic oil, gas, and mineral exploration; endangered Arctic species; and increased military operations in the Arctic could cause the region in coming years to become an arena of international cooperation, tension, or competition.

The United States, by virtue of Alaska, is an Arctic country and has substantial political, economic, energy, environmental, and other interests in the region. Decisions that Congress makes on Arctic-related issues could significantly affect these interests.

This report provides an overview of Arctic-related issues for Congress, and refers readers to more in-depth CRS reports on specific Arctic-related issues. Congressional readers with questions about an issue discussed in this report should contact the author or authors of the section discussing that issue. The authors are identified by footnote at the start of each section.

This report does not track legislation on specific Arctic-related issues. For tracking of legislative activity, see the CRS reports relating to specific Arctic-related issues that are listed at the end of this report, just prior to Appendix A.

Enjoy!

"HR is requiring you to submit job descriptions for all you soft-money positions, even if you have already hired someone in the position. You will also need to interview them and justify their hiring per HR policy." - @ass_deans

G. Tracy Mehan III's SWCS Keynote Address: 'Bringing Together Agriculture and Drinking Water Utilities for Source Water Protection'

G. Tracy Mehan III, a frequent contributor to WaterWired, executive director for government affairs at the American Water Works Association and adjunct professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University recently (29 July 2019) keynoted at the 74th Annual Conference of the Soil and Water Conservation Society in Pittsburgh, PA.

Download GTM_Keynote_Address_74th_SWCS_Intl_Annual_Conference_2019

Be sure to read the entire address; it's only 10 double-spaced pages. I will highlight the portions that made a particular impression on me.

Here are the first few paragraphs. 

Good morning. It is a privilege to kick off the Society’s 74th annual conference, the first since passage of the new Farm Bill. I want to thank Clare and all the members of the Society for inviting me to offer the perspective of the American Water Works Association (AWWA), its 50,000 individual members and over 4,000 drinking water utilities across the United States. We share your quest for sustainable agriculture recognizing the importance of food and water to all Americans.

My own personal involvement with agriculture goes back to my days as director of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and its robust soil and water program, supported by a parks-soils sales tax voted in, many times, by a referendum of the voters of the state. Subsequently, while working on Great Lakes issues in Michigan, I had the privilege of providing staff support for the Governor who co-chaired the National Forum for Nonpoint Source Pollution convened by the National Geographic Society and The Conservation Fund from 1993-1995.

Some more snippets....the Great Lakes and more:

More recently, I have also come to understand the impacts of nonpoint source pollution and agricultural runoff, not just on ambient water quality, but also our nation’s drinking water supply and public health. Recent history provides ample evidence.

In August of 2014, an algal bloom in western Lake Erie produced a toxin known asmicrocystin in the part of the lake from which the city of Toledo draws its drinking water. For three days, the city issued a “do not drink” advisory affecting more than 400,000 people served by its water system.

Still more...

Although every watershed is unique, and each has its own mix of nutrient sources, Lake Erie and the other Great Lakes have been subject to regulation of point source discharges (i.e.,the traditional discrete pipe or conveyance of pollution) under USEPA’s Clean Water Act formany decades. Yet, across North America, some of the most prominent sources of nitrogen and phosphorus are nonpoint sources such as diffuse runoff from regulated urban stormwater and unregulated agricultural stormwater. While regulation of urban storm water continues to advance, voluntary partnerships to help address concerns from agricultural lands remains the greatest opportunity for meaningful progress on these private lands.

The Toledo area includes plenty of row crop agriculture that ultimately drains into the Maumee River watershed, tributary to the part of western Lake Erie where the City takes its raw water. These agricultural nonpoint sources, except for large, concentrated animal feeding operations, are not regulated under federal law. Furthermore, they are unlikely to be regulated in the future given the breadth and reach of agricultural operations in the United States.

The recognition of the relationship between agriculture, the land as it were, and water quality is not new. In 2004, just after stepping down as head of EPA’s water office, I penned an article of the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (July/August) on “Successful Watershed Management,” in which I opined that “Water quality managers must now look to the entire watershed not just isolated sources of pollution-to nonpoint sources not just point sources.”  Moreover, “water quality managers now find themselves ‘playing without the ball’ at least with respect to diffuse, nonpoint sources which are mostly within the province of other agencies, local governments or private sector entities or individuals. These managers must coordinate their objectives with those of other players, throughout the watershed.”

More on drinking water:

Basically, utilities use a “multiple barrier approach” to provide the public adequate quantities of high-quality water at affordable rates. This approach is comprised of (1) selecting the highest-quality source water possible; (2) protecting the source; (3) treating the water; (4) maintaining quality in the distribution system; (5) monitoring quality at all these stages; and (6) when necessary, if the other barriers fail, implementing emergency response procedures. This is all set out in AWWA’s G300 standard many copies of which I have been distributing around USDA headquarters of late.

Source water protection (SWP) is related to watershed protection but is different in that it entails a tighter focus on sources of potable water and public health rather than only ambient water quality under the Clean Water Act. It might be helpful to conceive of these two concepts as a kind of Venn diagram with source water protection partially but not entirely overlapping with watershed protection.

“The primary objectives of SWP [Source Water Protection] programs are to maintain, safeguard, and/or improve the quality of a given water source…pollution prevention is often preferable to remediation or treatment of contaminated source water” (Gullick 2017). The benefits derived from this preventative approach include treatment cost savings, increasing public health protection and, in the case of some land-based practices, generating other environmental benefits such as habitat for endangered species, and protecting air quality.

Our G300 standard posits six main elements of developing and implementing a successful SWP program are:

1. Vision

2. Stakeholder involvement

3. Source water characterization

4. Goals

5. An action plan

6. Periodic evaluation and revision of the program.

Almost three years ago AWWA embarked on a sustained effort to forge effective partnerships with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Congress and the agricultural community to promote SWP as part of AWWA’s Total Water Solutions initiative. In addition to the advocacy efforts to incorporate source water protection into the Farm Bill and in implementing rules, AWWA has assisted several utilities in preparing applications to the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) based on models developed by pioneering utilities in Arkansas, Iowa and New England.

My last snippet (really!):

AWWA’s major legislative objective was to incorporate SWP as a basic program element in USDA and NRCS through the reauthorized Farm Bill. Besides advocating for funding for the conservation title (Title 2 of the Farm Bill, the portion of the overall law that lays out conservation policy and funding) to be maintained at current levels, or even increased, and that conservation policy gains from the Agricultural Act of 2014 be retained, AWWA advocated for an explicit emphasis on the following areas:

• Protect source water to safeguard potable water and public health

• Expand opportunities for the NRCS to work with water systems to prioritize SWP

activities in each state

• Increase benefits for farmers who employ practices that benefit downstream water quality

• Require that at least 10 percent of conservation program funds focus on the protection of drinking water sources. Furthermore, the Secretary of Agriculture should be authorized to work with drinking water utilities and State Technical Committees to identify local priority areas in each state.

On December 12, 2018, Congress passed and on December 20 the President signed afive-year Farm Bill (P.L.115-334) containing virtually all of AWWA’s requests to strengthen the protection of drinking water sources, as described in Section 2503. The Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 will contribute at least an astonishing $4 billion over 10 years to source water protection, as a floor not a ceiling. The bill also increased authorized funding for the RCPP to $300 million along with streamlining the program’s administrative process.

Well, I just summarized the letter by reproducing about half of it. Just read it all.

Enjoy!

"You know how you always say you learn just as much from teaching your classes as your students learn from taking them? Well, we decided to charge you tuition." - @ass_deans