notes for a new Water Culture
BLOG.WATERCULTURE.ORG
What Do Water Values Look like?
It's easy to understand why the cultural values that shape water policies are so seldom acknowledged: They're invisible. We can see only the effects of the values but not the values themselves. I thought about this today while undergoing a colonoscopy for the first time in my life. A tiny video camera is inserted through the anus and on up into the large intestine for a visual inspection in search of any growths (polyps) that might develop into cancer. Though possibly dangerous, they can't be detected through any symptoms until it's too late. They have to be located visually through the ingenious technology of a tiny camera.
What if we could poke a camera inside our water policies and see if there are any dysfunctional cultural values that might pose a threat to the health of the water ecosystem? How would we distinguish between healthy policies and dangerous ones?
Values that support sustainable water use (and reuse) would be healthy; values that justify overpumping aquifers or contaminating streams would be dangerous. But what about those in-between values, found throughout the world, which rationalize the dewatering of rivers with the argument that there's not enough water for both people and rivers?
My colon doctor told me that small polyps on the intestinal wall might or might not be dangerous, but as a precaution, he removes them He operates on the basis of the precautionary principle that it's better to avoid situations that might kill the patient. That might be a good way to approach water values too. We know that healthy rivers are better -- both for us and for Nature -- than unhealthy ones. The precautionary principle suggests that rather than dewater rivers and contaminate streams, we should instead look for ways that both people and rivers can coexist in a mutually healthy arrangement.
The values that get in the way of co-existence with the natural world can safely be categorized as unhealthy, greedy, and dangerous. Too bad we don't have a screening technology that can reveal them. What we do have, however, are conferences where we can debate water policies and how healthy or dangerous they might be. Next week I will be in Stockholm, Sweden for the annual World Water Week (Sept 5-11) and will be leading a roundtable on the application of ethics to water policies, as part of a larger session on water governance and climate change organized by WWF, Conservation International, and IUCN. I'll be blogging about values, and will report if I find any dangerous ones that we should be worried about!
Shoreline of the Rhine River (taken May 2010), where changing cultural values have helped improve water quality
and, to some extent, river morphology as well.
What if we could poke a camera inside our water policies and see if there are any dysfunctional cultural values that might pose a threat to the health of the water ecosystem? How would we distinguish between healthy policies and dangerous ones?
Values that support sustainable water use (and reuse) would be healthy; values that justify overpumping aquifers or contaminating streams would be dangerous. But what about those in-between values, found throughout the world, which rationalize the dewatering of rivers with the argument that there's not enough water for both people and rivers?
My colon doctor told me that small polyps on the intestinal wall might or might not be dangerous, but as a precaution, he removes them He operates on the basis of the precautionary principle that it's better to avoid situations that might kill the patient. That might be a good way to approach water values too. We know that healthy rivers are better -- both for us and for Nature -- than unhealthy ones. The precautionary principle suggests that rather than dewater rivers and contaminate streams, we should instead look for ways that both people and rivers can coexist in a mutually healthy arrangement.
The values that get in the way of co-existence with the natural world can safely be categorized as unhealthy, greedy, and dangerous. Too bad we don't have a screening technology that can reveal them. What we do have, however, are conferences where we can debate water policies and how healthy or dangerous they might be. Next week I will be in Stockholm, Sweden for the annual World Water Week (Sept 5-11) and will be leading a roundtable on the application of ethics to water policies, as part of a larger session on water governance and climate change organized by WWF, Conservation International, and IUCN. I'll be blogging about values, and will report if I find any dangerous ones that we should be worried about!
Shoreline of the Rhine River (taken May 2010), where changing cultural values have helped improve water quality
and, to some extent, river morphology as well.
Cities and Rivers: A Difficult Marriage with New Potential
Last weekend I was in Ann Arbor, Michigan for a family wedding, and took the opportunity to explore the Huron River that runs through town. I rented a 2-person kayak at Gallup Park, one of several city parks along the river which offer boat rentals, and my daugher and I paddled vigorously upstream for an hour and then enjoyed an easy return trip. Along the way the riverscape looked wild and pristine, except for occasional glimpses of a bike path behind the trees, and a few high buildings reminding us that this is an urban river after all. Congratulations to the citizens of Ann Arbor, and the Huron River Watershed Council, for providing a wilderness experience along this urban river!
With weddings on my mind, it occurred to me that rivers and cities are a bit like marriage partners..."in sickness and in health." Cities depend on their rivers, but rarely give them the recognition they deserve. The river plays the role of the subdued, self-effacing and emotionally abused wife supporting her ambitious, ego-centric husband. Watershed groups serve as marriage councillors to help bring the relationship back into balance. When the city recognizes the beauty and importance of his river partner, and gives her renewed attention and listens to her needs, both the river and the city become healthier and happier.
Riverfront development is gaining ground as an approach to urban planning in the US and even more so in Europe. The SWITCH program is an EU-funded initiative that is trying to bring about an urban water paradigm shift and guide cities back into a healthy relationship with their rivers. This is what the Water-Culture Institute is trying to promote under the category of urban water ethics, May we and our rivers have a long and happy marriage!
Kayaking on the Huron River, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Huron Parkway over the Huron River (Gallup Park on left)
an urban resident of the Huron River
With weddings on my mind, it occurred to me that rivers and cities are a bit like marriage partners..."in sickness and in health." Cities depend on their rivers, but rarely give them the recognition they deserve. The river plays the role of the subdued, self-effacing and emotionally abused wife supporting her ambitious, ego-centric husband. Watershed groups serve as marriage councillors to help bring the relationship back into balance. When the city recognizes the beauty and importance of his river partner, and gives her renewed attention and listens to her needs, both the river and the city become healthier and happier.
Riverfront development is gaining ground as an approach to urban planning in the US and even more so in Europe. The SWITCH program is an EU-funded initiative that is trying to bring about an urban water paradigm shift and guide cities back into a healthy relationship with their rivers. This is what the Water-Culture Institute is trying to promote under the category of urban water ethics, May we and our rivers have a long and happy marriage!
Kayaking on the Huron River, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Huron Parkway over the Huron River (Gallup Park on left)
an urban resident of the Huron River
How Water Makes Us Happy
The key to happiness, according to a New York Times article today, is not having more THINGS, but having interesting EXPERIENCES. The couple featured in the article gave up most of their possessions to live more simply, at least by American standards. They sold their two cars, live in a small apartment, and use the money they save to have time for friends, family, travel, and volunteer work. They're happier, they say, because they have richer experiences with people and human relationships.
Maybe the same thing is true of water in our lives. When we try to own and control it, through dams, levees, or private water rights, we expend a lot of resources to acquire and keep what we have. Choosing a simpler, "go-with-the-flow" water strategy would mean experiencing natural riparian cycles of flood and drought, and adapting to them by, for example, building our cities outside the floodplain (remember New Orleans?). Not all experiences are desirable, of course, but some variety makes life interesting. Water management that is ruled by "command and control" thinking tries to iron out the wrinkles of our water experience, so we don't have to experience the droughts and floods. Maybe we're missing something with that approach. Maybe the happiest strategy is to avoid extremes (long droughts or big floods) but find ways to accommodate to normal fluctuations. We would avoid building a lot of infrastructure, and have more time to enjoy the meandering river and listening to the chirping of birds nesting in the trees.
This is not (just) romantic wishing. There is an increasing interest in the so-called "real world" about nature's own infrastructure and how we can happily take advantage of it. A recent IUCN report explores the concept of environment as infrastructure, and for an overview of "ecosystem-based water management" principles, click here.
Experiencing the happiness of water vapor, Santa Fe, New Mexico, August 7, 2010
This is not (just) romantic wishing. There is an increasing interest in the so-called "real world" about nature's own infrastructure and how we can happily take advantage of it. A recent IUCN report explores the concept of environment as infrastructure, and for an overview of "ecosystem-based water management" principles, click here.
Experiencing the happiness of water vapor, Santa Fe, New Mexico, August 7, 2010
Indigenous Resource Managers Can Be Our Teachers
The current (August) National Geographic features the land and water management practices of American Indian tribes. The article, Reviving Native Lands, notes that, "Those whose lands were once taken from them...are setting an example for how to steward the environment." The many references to the sacred landscape that the tribes are stewarding constitute a rare reference, in the mainstream press, of the connection between spiritual values and sustainable management. A similar theme is echoed in the summer Newsletter of Wildearth Guardians under the title "The Option of Restraint - Heeding the Wisdom of the Endangered Species Act." The message is that we shouldn't be complacent about species threatened with extinction, but should take active measures to protect their habitat to allow their survival. What? Change our behavior? Compromise the principles of the American Dream?
Dennis Meadows, whom Baby Boomers may recall was the lead author of the 1972 landmark report, Limits to Growth, was in town a few weeks ago (hosted by the Santa Fe Institute), conveying a similar message about needing to curb our enthusiasm for material things. Our use of resources is critically unsustainable and our behaviors will be forced to change within the next decade. It's not a matter of our preference, or our choice, but of the physical limits of our rapidly deteriorating ecosystem. Click here to see the 90 minute presentation.
I felt that Meadows was unduly pessimistic, but I must confess that the tea leaves aren't very promising either. The same week that the UN passed a resolution declaring the human right to safe and clean drinking water, Survival International reported on the plight of Bushmen in Botswana being denied the right to drill wells on their ancestral lands, the same lands where tourists relax in the ecolodge swimming pool.
Can we save ourselves from falling off the logarithmic curves (which Dennis Meadows likes to show us) of over-exploitation of our planet's abundant but finite resources? Won't economics save us by incentivizing conservation? I do hold out this hope; in fact, I depend on it. But I just read a disturbing article by Sian Sullivan in the journal, Radical Anthropology, entitled, "Green capitalism, and the cultural poverty of constructing nature as service provider." It's a mouthful, but the gist of it is that we deceive ourselves by thinking of Nature as just a very large and complicated business enterprise. Remember how thinking of Nature as a machine got us into a lot of trouble? The corporate metaphor is just as dangerous. Nature is Nature and we need to behave in ways that fit in with her program. This is what indigenous resource managers can teach us. When Nature is seen as sacred, and also sick, the need for restoration is a no-brainer that does not require policy debates or cost benefit analysis. [For more on this topic, see the WaterCulture.org webpage on Values and Ethics].
Dennis Meadows showing why we should probably start changing our behavior...
Dennis Meadows, whom Baby Boomers may recall was the lead author of the 1972 landmark report, Limits to Growth, was in town a few weeks ago (hosted by the Santa Fe Institute), conveying a similar message about needing to curb our enthusiasm for material things. Our use of resources is critically unsustainable and our behaviors will be forced to change within the next decade. It's not a matter of our preference, or our choice, but of the physical limits of our rapidly deteriorating ecosystem. Click here to see the 90 minute presentation.
I felt that Meadows was unduly pessimistic, but I must confess that the tea leaves aren't very promising either. The same week that the UN passed a resolution declaring the human right to safe and clean drinking water, Survival International reported on the plight of Bushmen in Botswana being denied the right to drill wells on their ancestral lands, the same lands where tourists relax in the ecolodge swimming pool.
Can we save ourselves from falling off the logarithmic curves (which Dennis Meadows likes to show us) of over-exploitation of our planet's abundant but finite resources? Won't economics save us by incentivizing conservation? I do hold out this hope; in fact, I depend on it. But I just read a disturbing article by Sian Sullivan in the journal, Radical Anthropology, entitled, "Green capitalism, and the cultural poverty of constructing nature as service provider." It's a mouthful, but the gist of it is that we deceive ourselves by thinking of Nature as just a very large and complicated business enterprise. Remember how thinking of Nature as a machine got us into a lot of trouble? The corporate metaphor is just as dangerous. Nature is Nature and we need to behave in ways that fit in with her program. This is what indigenous resource managers can teach us. When Nature is seen as sacred, and also sick, the need for restoration is a no-brainer that does not require policy debates or cost benefit analysis. [For more on this topic, see the WaterCulture.org webpage on Values and Ethics].
Dennis Meadows showing why we should probably start changing our behavior...
Evolving Ethics: On Not Killing Bulls...or Rivers
BBC reports today that the pariliament of Catalonia, Spain, has voted to outlaw bull fighting. It's an ancient, deep-rooted tradition, but the public killing of bulls is now seen as barbaric and unethical. This evolution of ethics was predicted by Aldo Leopold in his famous essay on The Land Ethic. He notes that slavery was just part of the normal order of things for the Ancient Greeks (not to mention the pre-Civil War American South). Gradually we are enlarging our ethical purview. Today we are dealing with animal rights. Perhaps tomorrow we'll decide that rivers also deserve to be inside our ethical boundary.
I thought about this yesterday when I was in Cochiti Pueblo, a prehispanic community along the Rio Grande, near Santa Fe. I was there for a meeting with the Natural Resources director to talk about the tribe's vision for the future of the river. In the 1960s, the US government constructed what was then the longest earth-filled dam in the world, on top of the community's fields and sacred sites. Cochiti Dam, and associated short-sighted developments around the reservoir, nearly destroyed the community as well as the river, a history recounted in a 2007 article by Regis Pecos, former tribal governor. What seemed to make sense at the time, is now considered a tragic mistake. The US Army Corps of Engineers who built the dam have since issued a formal apology to the tribe. The prevailing ethics are shifting. Will the Amry Corps also apologize to the river? Perhaps someday!
Cochiti dam and lake, looking upstream (Google Earth image)
I thought about this yesterday when I was in Cochiti Pueblo, a prehispanic community along the Rio Grande, near Santa Fe. I was there for a meeting with the Natural Resources director to talk about the tribe's vision for the future of the river. In the 1960s, the US government constructed what was then the longest earth-filled dam in the world, on top of the community's fields and sacred sites. Cochiti Dam, and associated short-sighted developments around the reservoir, nearly destroyed the community as well as the river, a history recounted in a 2007 article by Regis Pecos, former tribal governor. What seemed to make sense at the time, is now considered a tragic mistake. The US Army Corps of Engineers who built the dam have since issued a formal apology to the tribe. The prevailing ethics are shifting. Will the Amry Corps also apologize to the river? Perhaps someday!
Cochiti dam and lake, looking upstream (Google Earth image)
Making Rivers Visible
Covering several miles of the Arkansas River with fabric, for the fleeting time span of 2 weeks, is the vision of Christo's "Over the River " project which made the news last week in a New York Times article. The internationally acclaimed artist, most famous for wrapping Germany's Reichstag, has been developing the concept for the river project since 1992. He and his late wife, Jeanne Claude, searched the Western US looking for a suitable river, and finally settled on an upstream stretch of the Arkansas River in SE Colorado. The project has been designed in painstaking detail, documented in a 2008 art exhibit of Christo's paingings at the Phillips Collection in Washington, DC, illustrating what it will look like when completed. [Click here for a 2 min video of Christo and Jeanne Claude introducing the exhibit; click here for the exhibit catalog, published by Taschen.].
Last week the US Bureau of Land Management released a 4-volume Environmental Impact Statement, about the project, evidence that it is indeed moving along towards construction (2 years), display (2 weeks) and then dismantling so that nothing remains except the memories. The cost: around $50m, all financed by Christo through the sale of his art. What's it for? You're not really supposed to ask. It's art, and that's about all that Christo himself offers by way of explanation.
Covering up rivers is an old tradition in cities around the world, but it's usually done with culverts and concrete, and the cover-up lasts for decades or even centuries, not just a few weeks. Christo's river cover-up is designed, I think it is safe to say, to do the opposite: to make the river visible, to help us see and appreciate what is under wraps. Isn't that what art is all about, making visible what normally goes unnoticed?
"Daylighting" streams and rivers that have been covered up and forgotten is a growth industry these days, part of an emerging water engineering "mea culpa" that includes decommissioning of dams. As the saying goes, you don't know what you've got till it's gone. In Seoul, South Korea, a small river through the main business district was uncovered to the immense appreciation of the 90,000 pedestrians who go out of their way to walk along its banks each day. [Click here for details]. In Yonkers, New York there is a similar story about the Saw Mill River being uncovered. And in some cities, like Halifax, Nova Scotia, sewer crews are required to consider daylighting buried streams whenever maintenance is needed, as a way of gradually reversing the unfortunate practice.
Then there are the rivers that are culturally invisible, those ignored and neglected rivers that no one seems to see. A new book about Santa Fe Icons describes 50 symbols that make Santa Fe, New Mexico (my fair city) distinctive. The historic Santa Fe River which flows right through the city center, in plain view, didn't make the list. It made #1 in the list of the county's Most Endangered Rivers in 2007, and was the reason the colonial government of New Spain established their northern headquarters here 400 years ago, but today it is as invisible as if it were buried in a culvert. Christo, we need your help! Please wrap our river too, so we can learn to see it again!
Santa Fe River - July 17, 2010
Last week the US Bureau of Land Management released a 4-volume Environmental Impact Statement, about the project, evidence that it is indeed moving along towards construction (2 years), display (2 weeks) and then dismantling so that nothing remains except the memories. The cost: around $50m, all financed by Christo through the sale of his art. What's it for? You're not really supposed to ask. It's art, and that's about all that Christo himself offers by way of explanation.
Covering up rivers is an old tradition in cities around the world, but it's usually done with culverts and concrete, and the cover-up lasts for decades or even centuries, not just a few weeks. Christo's river cover-up is designed, I think it is safe to say, to do the opposite: to make the river visible, to help us see and appreciate what is under wraps. Isn't that what art is all about, making visible what normally goes unnoticed?
"Daylighting" streams and rivers that have been covered up and forgotten is a growth industry these days, part of an emerging water engineering "mea culpa" that includes decommissioning of dams. As the saying goes, you don't know what you've got till it's gone. In Seoul, South Korea, a small river through the main business district was uncovered to the immense appreciation of the 90,000 pedestrians who go out of their way to walk along its banks each day. [Click here for details]. In Yonkers, New York there is a similar story about the Saw Mill River being uncovered. And in some cities, like Halifax, Nova Scotia, sewer crews are required to consider daylighting buried streams whenever maintenance is needed, as a way of gradually reversing the unfortunate practice.
Then there are the rivers that are culturally invisible, those ignored and neglected rivers that no one seems to see. A new book about Santa Fe Icons describes 50 symbols that make Santa Fe, New Mexico (my fair city) distinctive. The historic Santa Fe River which flows right through the city center, in plain view, didn't make the list. It made #1 in the list of the county's Most Endangered Rivers in 2007, and was the reason the colonial government of New Spain established their northern headquarters here 400 years ago, but today it is as invisible as if it were buried in a culvert. Christo, we need your help! Please wrap our river too, so we can learn to see it again!
Santa Fe River - July 17, 2010
Adding Value(s) to Agriculture
Last week the Asian Development Bank in Manila hosted the Investment Forum for Food Security in Asia and the Pacific " to showcase Asia and the Pacific as an attractive region for increased public and private sector investments on food security related initiatives." Co-sponsored with FAO and IFAD, the Forum's premise is that the very real challenges of food security can best be met through a much bigger role of the private sector, The Forum is the latest expression of agricultural dvelopment's dominant trend to promote an agribusiness culture fueled by private investments. Small farmers are being educated into adopting a new identity as entrepreneurs running small businesses. The Global Impact Investing Network, spearheaded by the Rockefeller Foundation, USAID, and JP Morgan, is coordinating investments into smallholder African agriculture under the Terragua Project aimed at "Improving food security and alleviating poverty among smallholder African farmers and their families."
Investments in the name of "food security" are aimed at cultural as well as economic transformation. Farmers are rewarded by investment finance if they embark on the development path laid out for them by well-meaning investors. But what is the deal those farmers are accepting? To repay their loans they will need to generate profits for the investors as well as for themselves. Their choice of crops will shift from traditional subsistence foods to cash crops of flowers and specialty foods for urban and foreign markets. Their market chain will favor the agribusinesses who are already linked in to those new opportunities.
Just as water management needs to reflect a larger canvas than just short-term financial gain, agriculture (which uses most of the water that gets managed) also needs to consider the total pool of values and services that it can generate. Ecoagriculture Partners is a global network of ecologists, agronomists, and social scientists that promotes valueing the ecosystem services of small farmers. The Compas Network for Endogenous Development is a Dutch-sponsored initiative to promote agricultural development that builds on local cultural values. These initiatives are important in rebalancing the dominant focus on private sector solutions to the challenge of food security. In Europe, Japan, and less-so in the US, the hot topics in agriculture are cultural heritage and identity, local food traditions, community empowerment, and the value of agricultural landscapes. But developing countries still rich in these natural and cultural traditions are being encouraged to de-value them in favor of monetary-based decisions.
Just as the environment vs development choice proved to be bogus, after the world decided that a sustainable environment is actually the foundation for sustainable development, we need to accord a similar recognition to community governance systems, social networks, and cultural values about traditional foods and farming practices. Sustainable food systems require sustainable communities, landscapes, and cultures. Let's not confront small farmers with the choice of becoming cogs in an agribusiness wheel or being condemned to a life of economic poverty. Let's find ways to address food security that builds on cultural resources and values about communities and ecosystems. For more details, see the Multifunctional Agriculture page of the WaterCulture website.
Irrigated field, Hyderabad, India
Investments in the name of "food security" are aimed at cultural as well as economic transformation. Farmers are rewarded by investment finance if they embark on the development path laid out for them by well-meaning investors. But what is the deal those farmers are accepting? To repay their loans they will need to generate profits for the investors as well as for themselves. Their choice of crops will shift from traditional subsistence foods to cash crops of flowers and specialty foods for urban and foreign markets. Their market chain will favor the agribusinesses who are already linked in to those new opportunities.
Just as water management needs to reflect a larger canvas than just short-term financial gain, agriculture (which uses most of the water that gets managed) also needs to consider the total pool of values and services that it can generate. Ecoagriculture Partners is a global network of ecologists, agronomists, and social scientists that promotes valueing the ecosystem services of small farmers. The Compas Network for Endogenous Development is a Dutch-sponsored initiative to promote agricultural development that builds on local cultural values. These initiatives are important in rebalancing the dominant focus on private sector solutions to the challenge of food security. In Europe, Japan, and less-so in the US, the hot topics in agriculture are cultural heritage and identity, local food traditions, community empowerment, and the value of agricultural landscapes. But developing countries still rich in these natural and cultural traditions are being encouraged to de-value them in favor of monetary-based decisions.
Just as the environment vs development choice proved to be bogus, after the world decided that a sustainable environment is actually the foundation for sustainable development, we need to accord a similar recognition to community governance systems, social networks, and cultural values about traditional foods and farming practices. Sustainable food systems require sustainable communities, landscapes, and cultures. Let's not confront small farmers with the choice of becoming cogs in an agribusiness wheel or being condemned to a life of economic poverty. Let's find ways to address food security that builds on cultural resources and values about communities and ecosystems. For more details, see the Multifunctional Agriculture page of the WaterCulture website.
Irrigated field, Hyderabad, India
The Business Case for Water Ethics
Among the many lessons we've learned with our 20-20 post-BP hindsight, is the importance and weakness of environmental regulation. It's not only that regulations are imperfectly enforced, but they are imperfect to begin with. In the case of rivers and aquifers in the Western US, the legal standards for water management are a lot more than imperfect; they're the main problem. Government policies actually encourage dewatered and channelized rivers, and depleted and poisoned aquifers (e.g., through gas shale fracturing that is perfectly legal and incredibly ldestructive). How can Nature and future generations be protected? Revolution? Civil Disobedience? How about unleashing the power of business "thought leaders" to develop their own, more sustainable water policies? A growing number of pin-striped revolutionaries are doing just that, using their economic, political, technical, and media resources to set higher standards for themselves, and encouraging their customers and even their regulators to do more to protect our water ecosystems.
The new trend of business involvement in water goes beyond reducing their manufacturing water footprint or dontating to water restoration projects, although these steps are also important. What strikes me as most hopeful is the emerging business interest in policy advocacy and community engagement. A new report, released last week by Pacific Institute, sets out a Framework for Responsible Business Engagement with Water Policy . Written for the UN-sponsored Global Compact's "CEO Water Mandate" the report expands on the text of the Water Mandate signed, so far, by 67 company CEOs who pledge not only to abide by the principles, but to formulate a public strategy for doing so.
Underlying this high level CEO club is a surprising amount of activity by individual companies and business ethics groups. The Ethical Corporation recently produced a report on Unlocking the profit in Water savings. Like much of the water-savings-is-good-for-business literature, this report stays closely focuses on the short-term bottom-line. However, a poll done for the report suggests that companies really do have a larger sense of helping the planet as well as themselves (Figure 1):
The grander vision of companies trying to be good citizens is outlined in the Water and Business White Paper and is also reflected by the UN World Water Development Report's Messages for Business Leaders. Helping to ensure the sustainability of the world's water resources is ultimately good for business, not to mention people generally as well as the planet. The most comprehensive compendium of what business is doing and could or should do is the Water for Business report produced jointly by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and IUCN for the 2009 World Water Forum in Istanbul.
There is too much to report here, ranging from the emerging use of water offset credits (e.g., the water restoration certificates being offered by Bonneville Educational Foundation), to companies applying their advertizing budgets to (in part) promoting ecological water behavior (e.g., Unilever's GoBlue Project). Visit the business ethics section of the WaterCulture Institute for further details (coming soon...).
The new trend of business involvement in water goes beyond reducing their manufacturing water footprint or dontating to water restoration projects, although these steps are also important. What strikes me as most hopeful is the emerging business interest in policy advocacy and community engagement. A new report, released last week by Pacific Institute, sets out a Framework for Responsible Business Engagement with Water Policy . Written for the UN-sponsored Global Compact's "CEO Water Mandate" the report expands on the text of the Water Mandate signed, so far, by 67 company CEOs who pledge not only to abide by the principles, but to formulate a public strategy for doing so.
Underlying this high level CEO club is a surprising amount of activity by individual companies and business ethics groups. The Ethical Corporation recently produced a report on Unlocking the profit in Water savings. Like much of the water-savings-is-good-for-business literature, this report stays closely focuses on the short-term bottom-line. However, a poll done for the report suggests that companies really do have a larger sense of helping the planet as well as themselves (Figure 1):
The grander vision of companies trying to be good citizens is outlined in the Water and Business White Paper and is also reflected by the UN World Water Development Report's Messages for Business Leaders. Helping to ensure the sustainability of the world's water resources is ultimately good for business, not to mention people generally as well as the planet. The most comprehensive compendium of what business is doing and could or should do is the Water for Business report produced jointly by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and IUCN for the 2009 World Water Forum in Istanbul.
There is too much to report here, ranging from the emerging use of water offset credits (e.g., the water restoration certificates being offered by Bonneville Educational Foundation), to companies applying their advertizing budgets to (in part) promoting ecological water behavior (e.g., Unilever's GoBlue Project). Visit the business ethics section of the WaterCulture Institute for further details (coming soon...).
Moods of Lake Michigan
I've been on a 2-week vacation on the shores of Lake Michigan, on the northwestern shore, near Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. The lake is always changing. Here are a few of her moods:
Dawn is usually the time of the calmest water.
The waves can begin very quickly
sometimes turning to swells,
or becoming calm again.
Dawn is usually the time of the calmest water.
The waves can begin very quickly
sometimes turning to swells,
or becoming calm again.
Do "Water Ethics" Qualify as a "Concrete Adaptation" to Climate Change?
Yet another international water organization was created this week: the Water and Climate Coalition, chaired by the Stockholm Water Institute (SIWI ) and the UK-based Stakeholder Forum . The initiative was announced at the Bonn climate change talks which continue through today. The Water and Climate Coalition brings together several important constituencies (engineering, health, environment, civil society) to "raise the profile of water issues in relation to climate change." Specifically, the part of water that needs attention is its management. The tendency in the water world is to find ways of spending lots of money to solve any given problem. One important message that the Coalition is articulating is that water needs to be managed in a way that supports already stressed ecosystems so they can recover from the additional stress of climate change (e.g., bigger droughts and floods). For details, see the report, Water World: Why the global climate challenge is a global water challenge, which will likely serve as a table of contents for issues which the Coalition will address.
At the Bonn talks, a side meeting organized by the Global Water Partnership, addressed the issue of whether investments in non-structural management enhancements (e.g., re-calculating reservoir releases to support environmental flows) could qualify as a "concrete adaptation activity" and therefore be eligible for a UNFCCC "Adaptation Fund." The general sense seemed to be yes, but it raises the larger question of how best to support resilient water ecosystems that can continue supporting us with secure supplies of water? As discussed in the Climate Adaptation page of the Water-Culture website, the answer does not have to be more dams and diversions. Let's consider the "low hanging fruit" of adapting our water behavior, and our water ethics, before looking to "concrete" to save us.
Photo: Acequia canal near Trampas, New Mexico
At the Bonn talks, a side meeting organized by the Global Water Partnership, addressed the issue of whether investments in non-structural management enhancements (e.g., re-calculating reservoir releases to support environmental flows) could qualify as a "concrete adaptation activity" and therefore be eligible for a UNFCCC "Adaptation Fund." The general sense seemed to be yes, but it raises the larger question of how best to support resilient water ecosystems that can continue supporting us with secure supplies of water? As discussed in the Climate Adaptation page of the Water-Culture website, the answer does not have to be more dams and diversions. Let's consider the "low hanging fruit" of adapting our water behavior, and our water ethics, before looking to "concrete" to save us.
Photo: Acequia canal near Trampas, New Mexico
