Water security principles, perspectives and practices

Tai Lieu Chat Luong Water Security The purpose of this book is to present an overview of the latest research, policy, practitioner, academic, and international thinking on water security— an issue that, like water governance a few years ago, has developed much policy awareness and momentum with a wide range of stakeholders As a concept it is open to multiple interpretations, and the authors here set out the various approaches to the topic from different perspectives Key themes addressed include: • • • • Water security as a foreign policy issue The interconnected variables of water, food, and human security Dimensions other than military and international relations concerns around water security Water security theory and methods, tools and audits The book is loosely based on a Master’s level degree plus a short professional course on water security both given at the University of East Anglia, delivered by international authorities on their subjects It should serve as an introductory textbook as well as be of value to professionals, NGOs, and policymakers Bruce Lankford is Professor of Water and Irrigation Policy in the School of International Development at the University of East Anglia, UK Karen Bakker is a Professor in Geography, Canada Research Chair in Political Ecology, and Director of the Program on Water Governance at the University of British Columbia, Canada Mark Zeitoun is a Reader in the School of International Development at the University of East Anglia, UK, and Co-Director of the UEA Water Security Research Centre Declan Conway is Professor of Water Resources and Climate Change in the School of International Development, University of East Anglia, UK This page intentionally left blank Water Security Principles, Perspectives, and Practices Edited by Bruce Lankford, Karen Bakker, Mark Zeitoun, and Declan Conway First published 2013 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2013 Bruce Lankford, Karen Bakker, Mark Zeitoun, and Declan Conway, selection and editorial material; individual chapters, the contributors The right of the editors to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 All rights reserved No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Water security : principles, perspectives and practices / edited by Bruce Lankford, Karen Bakker, Mark Zeitoun and Declan Conway pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index Water supply—Government policy Water security Water resources development I Lankford, Bruce A HD1691.W3646 2013 333.91—dc23 2013015504 ISBN: 978-0-415-53470-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-415-53471-0 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-203-11320-2 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC Contents Preface Contributors ix xi PART I Frameworks and Approaches to Water Security 1 Introduction: A Battle of Ideas for Water Security MARK ZEITOUN, BRUCE LANKFORD, KAREN BAKKER, AND DECLAN CONWAY The Web of Sustainable Water Security 11 MARK ZEITOUN The Water Security Paradox and International Law: Securitisation as an Obstacle to Achieving Water Security and the Role of Law in Desecuritising the World’s Most Precious Resource 26 CHRISTINA LEB AND PATRICIA WOUTERS PART II Perspectives and Principles 47 49 Debating the Concept of Water Security CHRISTINA COOK AND KAREN BAKKER The Multiform Water Scarcity Dimension 64 MALIN FALKENMARK Water Security in a Changing Climate DECLAN CONWAY 80 vi Contents The Role of Cities as Drivers of International Transboundary Water Management Processes 101 ANTON EARLE The Water–Energy Nexus: Meeting Growing Demand in a Resource-Constrained World 115 ANTONY FROGGATT Water Security for Ecosystems, Ecosystems for Water Security 130 DAVID TICKNER AND MIKE ACREMAN 10 From Water Productivity to Water Security: A Paradigm Shift? 148 FLORIANE CLEMENT 11 Transboundary Water Security: Reviewing the Importance of National Regulatory and Accountability Capacities in International Transboundary River Basins 166 NAHO MIRUMACHI PART III Water Security as Practice Debates 181 12 Easy as 1, 2, 3? Political and Technical Considerations for Designing Water Security Indicators 183 NATHANIEL MASON 13 Water Security Risk and Response: The Logic and Limits of Economic Instruments 204 DUSTIN GARRICK AND ROBERT HOPE 14 Corporate Water Stewardship: Exploring Private Sector Engagement in Water Security 220 NICK HEPWORTH AND STUART ORR 15 The Shotgun Marriage: Water Security, Cultural Politics, and Forced Engagements between Official and Local Rights Frameworks 239 RUTGERD BOELENS 16 Infrastructure Hydromentalities: Water Sharing, Water Control, and Water (In)security BRUCE LANKFORD 256 Contents 17 The Strategic Dimensions of Water: From National Security to Sustainable Security vii 273 BENJAMIN ZALA 18 Dances with Wolves: Four Flood Security Frames 289 JEROEN WARNER 19 Household Water Security and the Human Right to Water and Sanitation 307 JONATHAN CHENOWETH, ROSALIND MALCOLM, STEVE PEDLEY, AND THOKO KAIME PART IV Conclusion 319 20 Food-Water Security: Beyond Water Resources and the Water Sector 321 J A (TONY) ALLAN 21 A Synthesis Chapter: The Incodys Water Security Model 336 BRUCE LANKFORD Index 353 This page intentionally left blank Preface It is perhaps not surprising that the increasing use of the term water security mirrors growing concerns over how society’s needs for resources will be met and who will gain relative to others Water security is a lens through which to understand the risks of a lack of water, poor quality water, and inadequate flood protection, as well as how these are distributed This contrasts with a vernacular understanding of the notion of security, which for water would imply that in facing these risks, it should be appropriated, annexed and secured What this book (and literature elsewhere) shows is that a ‘securitisation’ interpretation of water security is unhelpful in its framing of the challenge of managing water Yet water security resonates with donors, countries, individuals, and organisations Water security invokes the ideas of risk but also action—that water insecurities exist and can be managed—and in a much more acute way than the rather more neutral term IWRM (integrated water resources management) ever did While some water managers, politicians, CEOs, or individuals might see water security in its unilateral ‘securing’ way, many more intuitively understand and witness the shared nature of the resource This collective, integrated, and action-oriented view of water and water security is, arguably, common knowledge amongst water scientists, managers, and users Thus, although this new term has arrived, their experiences tell them that the challenges of managing and sharing water remain considerable and highly complex In short, little has changed; it would be an absurdity for water managers and scientists to be exhorted to rethink water in a new securitising way Nevertheless, even when the intention is better management, appropriative and securitising forces are generated continuously, sometimes subtly and unwittingly, potentially exacerbating shortages and resulting in inequitable distribution of water and water benefits For example, placing an irrigation scheme above a small town can disrupt shares of river water during droughts and dry seasons, or in another example, the introduction of water charges for drinking water might marginalise the poorest in a community To uncover and mitigate these appropriative forces for the benefit of public and environmental goods and services requires an understanding of many factors—entirely the ethos and concern of integrated water resources A Synthesis Chapter: The Incodys Water Security Model 343 including technologies such as inserting and/or raising bunds, providing river training, dredging and removing bottlenecks, adding safe storage areas such as floodplains, redesigning urban and industrial architecture, introducing improved emergency services, and effecting upstream landuse changes to the catchment While these describe some of the management inputs, the outcomes measured for the purpose of assessing security from floods could utilise the Water Framework Directive model where classes of risk are mapped spatially, and from which, for example, some insurance companies derive their premiums Equity/Justice Axis Group The equity/justice axis measures three different criteria that reflect the equitability and justice dimensions of water management This axis promotes the idea of water sharing—either of water abundance or of water scarcity Furthermore, this group of measures reminds water managers and decision makers that ‘partial security’ is not security, that those who gain at the expense of others might have their advantage questioned and removed • • • Allocation This measure captures the idea of how bulk or annualised volumes are shared between different sectors or communities within a given basin, subcatchment, or country Because allocation is a measure of sharing, and because uneven allocation must reflect a difference relative to practice or expectations, measures of allocation must be carefully defined Coefficients of variation or of difference are likely to be incorporated into this type of indicator Different emphases on blue and green water allocation (Falkenmark, Chapter 5) would reflect the types of systems being studied Dynamic apportionment Critical to the notion of equality is whether all users and sectors gain under two particularly challenging environments: one is during drought, and the other is during periods when systems are moving quickly between wetness and dryness Dynamic apportionment is a suitable term that covers equitable distribution under such conditions Both variability and drought are set to increase as a result of climate change (Conway, Chapter 6), and both provide opportunities for advantaged parties to gain in relative terms alongside others As well as incorporating this idea in this book (Lankford, Chapter 16), three papers (Lankford, 2004; Lankford and Beale, 2007; Lankford and Mwaruvanda, 2007) elaborate upon how fast moving and stochastic nonequilibrium conditions allow upstream irrigators to unpredictably and disproportionally gain compared to others Productivity/efficiency Some might argue that productivity and efficiency are substantively a different type of descriptor of water systems, in effect creating a ‘third’ axis allowing systems to be described using the criteria of sufficiency, equity, and productivity However, seeking purposively to keep with two axes and four water security states, I have joined productivity 344 Bruce Lankford and efficiency to equity/justice rather than to sufficiency This decision flows from the argument that well-shared timely co-managed water is likely to be more productive for users between and within sectors than if only a select few obtain ‘their secure supply’ Nevertheless, as Clement (Chapter 10) hints, the economic argument for water to flow to the most productive sector (e.g., industry rather than agriculture) counters the sharing principle of this equity/justice axis However, Clement’s observation on economic efficiency suggests why biophysical efficiency might be linked to equity rather than to sufficiency or stand alone as a separate indicator The principle at work here is one of allocating water on the basis of a level playing field so that potential (i.e., higher) biophysical efficiency not actual (probably low) biophysical efficiency drives both the allocation decision and the amounts of water transfers involved In this sense, allocation is then seen as equitable (in the legal sense) rather than purely on the basis of political priority and a misapprehension that agricultural sectors are, de facto, inefficient To exemplify: Low-productivity irrigation comes under focus for allocation of water to another sector via raising its efficiency rather than deducting water from its net beneficial needs.2 Indicators for productivity and efficiency can be generated from using either exact measures (e.g., crop per drop or dollar per drop) or relative measures set against local and achievable standards The Incodys Water Security Model Using points made in the introduction and in the sections above, the incodys model of water security (Figures 21.2 and 21.3) utilises a two-dimensional field of water security constructed from ‘sufficiency’ and ‘equity’ based on six criteria given in Table 21.1 The x-axis is the sufficiency axis, while the y-axis depicts equity Furthermore, it is the movement up the equity/justice axis (away from the x-axis) that invokes the idea of cooperation and collectiveness Hence the naming of two conditions includes the prefix co- for those at the top of the graph where sharing and equity are expressed most clearly This cooperative ethos is expressed by Zala (Chapter 17), Mirumachi (Chapter 11), and in words by Leb and Wouters: ‘cooperation and not securitisation is at the heart of achieving effective water security’ One consequence from the two-axis model is the identification of four types of water securities, explored in the subsections below A fifth condition, a-security, begins the discussion Water a-Security Not graphed in either the radar charts of Figure 21.2 or the incodys x–y chart of Figure 21.3 is a condition of a-security A-security is discussed first because it usefully distinguishes what the incodys model does and does not address The incodys model primarily applies to situations where water demand and supply are in a state of balance/imbalance and where both demand and supply A Synthesis Chapter: The Incodys Water Security Model 345 Volumetric sufficiency Volumetric sufficiency Water allocation Flood protection Flood protection Water allocation Dynamic apportionment Water quality Water quality Water coinsecurity Productivity/ efficiency Volumetric sufficiency Flood protection Water insecurity Water allocation Dynamic apportionment Water co-security Productivity/ efficiency Water dys-security Volumetric sufficiency Water allocation Flood protection Dynamic apportionment Water quality Water quality Dynamic apportionment Productivity/ efficiency Productivity/ efficiency Figure 21.2 Four conditions of water security depicted in the radar charts [C] = Certain factions water secure [D] = Lack of supply; water insecurities shared [E] = Collective water security improved [A] = High levels of water insecurity [B] = Some progress made Water co-insecurity Insecurity shared Collective water security (co-security) Water co-securitisation E The equity/justice axis D Water security transitions space B A Water insecurity C The sufficiency axis Partisan water security Dys-security / Water securitisation Figure 21.3 The incodys transitions space of water security 346 Bruce Lankford are significantly shaped by anthropogenic influences (or where ecological concerns are represented by humans) On the other hand a-security describes conditions where extant and future anthropogenic and ecological demands are predictably and quantitatively small Examples of this in humid zones might be found in central rainforests of Amazon and Congo regions, which experience annual rainfall amounts of approximately 2,500 mm/year or more and where few humans live At the dry end of the spectrum, examples of human absence and where nature is attuned to aridity are found in tropical, sub-tropical, and artic deserts, such as the Sahara While there are communities in these environments that face water insecurities (pointing to the need for an appropriate scale focus), it would be questionable to impute the term ‘water insecure’ to environments predictably very dry or very wet inhabited by very few humans However, a-security is subjective and in flux; future balances between supply and demand in a climate-changing and population-changing world are unpredictable Placing a-security prior to the subsections on the four conditions of water security prefigures the discussion below on perspectives: that while water security and measures of water cannot be arrived at objectively, we nevertheless should treat critically claims regarding water insecurity The identification of four incodys securities and use of measurable indicators serve discussions that would otherwise poorly disentangle the interests and perspectives at work Water Insecurity Shown in the bottom left frame of Figure 21.2, water insecurity describes a condition of both insufficient and poorly shared water resources This state arises because there is inadequate supply over demand, poor water quality with associated health impacts, and/or high risks of extensive flood damage In terms of equity and justice, despite there being little excess water, some sectors gain at cost of others both during normal conditions and when droughts hit Water productivity is low and uneven, which combined with reduced volumes of water, leads to low economic growth Water Co-Insecurity Communities face water co-insecurity (top left of Figure 21.2) when scarcity, poor water quality, and/or the risk of flooding are shared more equitably between individuals, communities, and systems Unfortunately, without good monitoring and communication, users experiencing water co-insecurity may blame their neighbours for over-consuming water; thus, in some situations, co-insecurity might ‘feel’ much like water insecurity For example, without an emphasis on a sufficiency of good quality water, health impacts are still likely to be negative Productivity, although likely to be more even and perhaps slightly higher than in an insecure situation, may not feed through to high production because of water supply constraints A Synthesis Chapter: The Incodys Water Security Model 347 Water Dys-Security In Figure 21.2, bottom right, water dys-security is marked by highly uneven, partisan, and factional water security Thus, although at one scale there is sufficient supply to meet demand, this has been captured by a few players or sectors This has occurred because of geographic sequencing (for example, where large areas of irrigation lie upstream of wetlands) or because of imbalances in water law (where environmental demands are poorly recognised) Another example is found in parts of India where via a combination of technology and energy pricing, richer farmers have sunk deeper boreholes, leaving shallow tubewells supplying poorer members of the community The particular feature about water dys-security is that these imbalances are felt throughout the hydrological regime from abundance during normal to wet years and during downturns and dry periods Although flood protection and good quality water are afforded to some, the overall sense is that that some sectors of the community or environment are poorly provided for Imbalances in water productivity are also notable, with the effect that in total the benefits of water are not optimised Water Co-Security The radar chart for water co-security (upper-right of Figure 21.2) views water and flood protection as sufficient for all parties and evenly shared between the parties involved In particular, sectors and users are treated equitably when analysed using both bulk annual volumes and during periods of scarcity and rapid change Furthermore, combinations of sufficient water (shared equally) with good quality clean water and flood protection also serve to boost water productivity, healthy human populations, and environmental goods Water Security Transitions Figure 21.3 brings together the above states of water security into a transitions space The first, ‘water insecurity’ is located in the bottom-left corner, characterised by insufficiency and inequity In the bottom right-hand corner, water securitisation has delivered sufficiency to certain factions but leaves others insecure In the top left of Figure 21.3, sharing delivers water coinsecurity more equitably yet parties still face forms of insufficiency Finally, in co-security, towards the top-right of Figure 21.3, interventions improve sufficiency and sharing Figure 21.3 shows a system hypothetically moving through this space from situation A (water insecurity) to C, D, and E, each relating to the four corners of the graph Situation B offers an example whereby some progress is made, perhaps by the installation of a new water treatment works, but the community continues to argue that it remains short of sufficient quantities of water or that this better drinking water is more expensive and is not reaching all members of the community 348 Bruce Lankford Discussion A number of observations can now be made about the design of the incodys model and how it might be applied Readers are reminded that this conceptual framework is at an early stage of development and needs additional work on metrics and indicators using case material Socioeconomic Water Security Outcomes I reiterate here that in the search for commensurability, the incodys model seeks to portray hydro-physical (e.g., cubic metres of water consumed by sectors) rather than socioeconomic outcomes (e.g., number of water agreements in place) However, this is not to downplay the latter With respect to socioeconomic water security outcomes, a number of authors in this book identify examples Outcomes include general health and poverty indicators (Chenoweth et al., Chapter 19); urban, industrial, and economic activity associated with water (Earle, Chapter 7); and impacts on other resources such as energy, land, and food (Froggatt, Chapter 8) The lack of space precludes further exposition; however, it is important to mention that these metrics are highly complementary of hydro-physical measures of sufficiency and equity The Incodys Transitive Space I have purposively not divided the incodys space into four exact quadrangles (or placed the axes intersection at the centre of the graph), as I believe this would mistakenly signal that exact and even thresholds apply to many, if not all, systems Instead, I perceive the incodys model as being a dialogue tool to elicit and subsequently test subjective understandings of water security in relation to physical metrics In other words, researchers using the model might discover that communities and individuals believe that insecurity occupies the majority of the space of Figure 21.3, leaving the notion of verifiable mutually agreed co-security a minor part of the field Furthermore, the conceptual location of the fifth state of a-security is not placed in the incodys space because it does not arise through the criteria of sufficiency and equity of water security In other words, because patterns of supply and demand are not significantly problematic (being almost entirely natural and without the presence of human concern), a-security sits outside of the incodys space Sufficiency and Equity Interactions Early discussions of the model with Masters of Science (MSc) students on the UEA Water Security degree in March 2013 confirmed an array of interactions might exist between sufficiency and equity One is that ‘sufficient’ water quality, quantity, and flood protection might automatically ‘trickle down’ into equity Others viewed that these two dimensions need not be A Synthesis Chapter: The Incodys Water Security Model 349 necessarily linked and that high levels of sufficiency might be marked by low levels of equity between parties These views imply further work on whether the incodys model is interested in relative or absolute measures of water security For example, a new large dam might generate greater benefits for more people (in absolute terms), but some members of society gain tremendously from this infrastructure compared to others Participation, Perceptions, and Metrics Working with ideas of water security at different spatial and temporal scales will inevitably summon critical problems related to subjectivities and perceptions As Zala (Chapter 17) writes: ‘Particular attention must be given to addressing local-level perceptions of inequality and injustice, particularly in conflict and post-conflict situations’ Similarly, Garrick and Hope (Chapter 13) posit: ‘Individual and social perceptions of risk are fundamental to decision making to manage water security risks and tradeoffs’ For these reasons, the incodys model promotes the collection and analysis of metrics as paramount objectives to inform the deliberative and participatory process that then attempts to reconcile disparate users’ perceptions It is the lack of substantiated metrics that make many participatory workshops somewhat hollow affairs It should be noted that participation itself is not part of the incodys set of physical metrics, but it may be recorded as a socioeconomic outcome Insecurity Reversals Further work is required on how the model might depict a severe reversal in water insecurity—as might happen during a protracted drought.3 While one answer to this phenomenon might be a continuation of the axes into negative territory using minus numbers or the adoption of a logarithmic scale, I am more inclined to think that the incodys space is not anchored to a particular baseline In other words, severe water scarcity would see the graph rescaled This fits points made elsewhere in the chapter that the model is primarily a metric-informed dialogue tool Mapping Water Security at the Global Scale Finally, because water security is made up of two themes, it will be highly unlikely that the incodys model can be turned into an index that can be used as a global map of water security I judge this as a major benefit and caution against attempts to so World maps that ‘find’ damp Northern Europe to be one colour, zero rainfall Sahara desert to be another, Greenland to be blank, and the ‘hotspots’ of the Indus and Nile (for example) to be another colour are entirely unconvincing, given that they miss the local detail of the multiple and transient aspects of water The incodys model would, with its two axes, be difficult to transform into different colours Thus, because of 350 Bruce Lankford explicitly recognised problems of data, perspective, and temporal flux, a global map of incodys numbers or classes would be nonsensical Conclusions Rather than rephrasing the overview offered in the opening chapter or identifying further work and spelling out gaps in this book (of which there will be many), this final chapter has drawn on authors’ chapters to propose a water security synthesis This chapter has applied a framework to distinguish between water security governance and water security With regards to the latter, a two-axis formulation of water security, based on ideas of ‘sufficiency’ and ‘equity’, has been proposed This, in turn, gives rise to an incodys transitive field comprising four states of water security: insecurity, co-insecurity, dys-security, and co-security It has also grappled with the scope of water security considering that there are situations where, due to environmental circumstances and an absence of anthropogenic interests, no water security problem arises (so called a-security) Clearly, this conceptual treatment of water security has left open many questions of how to define and measure sufficiency and equity and to govern water security transitions Notes I am more persuaded of the ‘opposites’ argument in the field of food security; that the ‘opposite’ of food security is food insecurity This is because, in some respects, food is an endpoint, while water is both something received but also consumed, nonconsumed, distributed, and passed on The collective use and distribution of water, and therefore equity, is central to successful water management The aim of this discussion is to link efficiency and productivity to equity Without doubt this logic in the real world would be messy and complex because of the difficulties in separating beneficial, nonbeneficial, and recovered flows I am grateful to Jenny Fraser (UEA MSc Water Security) for her question on the issue of water security reversals References EU (2012) ‘The EU Water Framework Directive—integrated river basin management for Europe’, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html, accessed 24 March 2013 Grey, D and Garrick, D (2012) Brief No.1: Water Security as a Defining 21st Century Challenge, University of Oxford, Oxford Grey, D and Sadoff, C (2007) ‘Sink or swim? Water security for growth and development’ Water Policy, vol 9, no 6, pp545–571 Kallis, G and Butler, D (2001) ‘The EU water framework directive: measures and implications’, Water Policy, vol 3, no 2, pp125–142 Lankford, B A (2004) ‘Resource-centred thinking in river basins: should we revoke the crop water approach to irrigation planning?’, Agricultural Water Management, vol 68, no 1, pp33–46 Lankford, B.A and Beale, T (2006) ‘Equilibrium and non-equilibrium theories of sustainable water resources management: dynamic river basin and irrigation behaviour in Tanzania’, Global Environmental Change, vol 17, no 2, pp168–180 A Synthesis Chapter: The Incodys Water Security Model 351 Lankford, B A and Mwaruvanda, W (2007) ‘A legal-infrastructural framework for catchment apportionment’, in B Van Koppen, M Giordano, and J Butterworth (eds) Community-based Water Law and Water Resource Management Reform in Developing Countries, Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture Series, CABI Publishing, Wallingford Molle, F and Mollinga, P (2003) ‘Water poverty indicators: conceptual problems and policy issues’, Water Policy vol 5, pp529–544 Sullivan, C (2002) ‘Calculating a water poverty index’, World Development, vol 30, no 7, pp1195–1211 UN-Water (2013) Water Security and the Global Water Agenda: A UN-Water Analytical Brief, United Nations University, Institute for Water, Environment & Health (UNU-INWEH), Canada This page intentionally left blank Index adaptation 32–3, 80, 87, 166, 207–08, 249, 281; adaptive decision making 35 Afghanistan 274 Africa 37,75, 101–2, 108, 170, 204, 249, 309; African 71, 73, 174, 214, 333, 337; East African 84, 226; North African 14, 57; South Africa 21, 67, 74, 91, 104, 109, 123, 144, 169, 194–5, 213, 231, 310; Southern Africa 84, 104, 105; SubSaharan Africa 110, 159, 170, 192, 275, 307, 329 African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child 39 Algeria 124 Alliance for Water Stewardship 221, 222, 229 aquifer recharge 16 Aral Sea 130, 168, 324 Argentina 115 Asian Development Bank 157, 164, 173, 239 Australia 58, 80, 124–5, 135, 140, 204, 212, 329 automation 260, 265 Bangladesh 36, 334, 342 basic needs 3, 57, 309 basin closure 67, 71, 260 battle of ideas 3–5 biodiversity 32, 132, 173, 198, 231 bio fuels 14, 17, 87, 117 biophysical 11, 64, 71, 150, 153, 156, 210, 215, 340 Blue Revolution 148 blue water 8, 53, 55, 64, 321 Botswana 104, 109–11 bottled water 125, 227 Brahmaputra 86 Brazil 19, 72, 115, 141, 213, 225 Burma 292 Burundi 37 businesses 5, 194, 220, 224, 227–8 California 74, 123, 324 Cambodia 36, 172 Canada 52, 90, 124, 295 carbon cycle 18 carbon storage 75 CEO Water Mandate 220, 228 child mortality 26 China 14, 34, 72, 105, 115, 133, 172, 190, 212, 290 cities see also urban 101 civil society 172, 184–5, 233–4, 284, 290, 299, 302 climate change 5, 13, 26, 80, 115, 141, 166, 217, 273, 301, 327 climate scenarios 92, 302 climate security 14 coal 118, 172 coastal erosion 81 Colombia 213 Colorado 34, 90, 324 comprehensiveness 5, 7, conflict 14, 76, 94, 100, 120, 137, 163, 242, 269 conservation 30, 89, 130, 232, 299 Convention on Biological Diversity 32–3 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination 39 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 39 cooperation 27, 53, 83, 167, 227, 267, 299 corporate engagement 6, 221 corporate risk 354 Index Costa Rica 141, 213 crop production 64, 69, 224, 324, 326 crop yields 70, 76, 327 cultural politics 239, 246 food-water 149, 321, 327 foreign affairs fossil fuels 14, 116 France 35, 213 dam 4, 26, 105, 110, 130, 168, 195, 240, 259, 349 decision making 35, 60, 93, 133, 149, 160, 220, 240 demography 322, 327 see also population depoliticized 240–1, 251–2 desalination 110, 122, 168 desecuritisation 27, 29, 290, 297 Disaster Risk Reduction 193, 294–5, 303 drinking water 37, 124, 184, 191, 210, 223, 249, 307, 342 droughts 28, 190, 258, 346 Ganges 36, 74, 86, 167, 171 Geography 4, 30, 53, 118, 224, 278 geology 53, 84, 118, 190, 258 geopolitics 50, 166 Germany 35, 234 Global Environment Facility 33 global limits 16 global warming 75, 82 global water crisis 96 Global Water Partnership 49, 55–6, 59, 157, 170 green water 8, 64, 64, 65, 66, 69, 76, 192, 269, 322, 342 greenhouse gas emissions 82, 92, 118, 124, 127, 136 groundwater 12, 32, 41, 53, 65, 70, 80, 86, 91, 103, 110, 119, 132, 189, 198, 205, 224, 312, 325, 339 ecosystems 130 Ecuador 213, 247–8 efficiency 19, 71, 95, 119, 175, 191, 204, 208, 231, 261, 282, 340 Egypt 19, 21, 37, 107, 126, 292, 326 El Nino 12, 83, 91, 207 Elbe/Danube 83 electricity 37, 95, 105, 117, 176 engineering 5, 53, 64, 89, 135, 204, 256, 323 England and Wales 82 environmental degradation 57, 153, 168, 174; environmental determinism 7, 284; environmental flows 131, 138, 262; environmental science 4, 51 equitability 11, 16, 18, 339, 343 equity 5, 26, 159, 208, 221, 246, 259, 336 Ethiopia 12, 37, 95, 107, 126, 195, 307–8, 313 Europe 34, 67, 83, 115, 133, 135–6, 223, 293–8, 323 extreme events 34, 80, 193, 205 famine 7, 70, 156, 294 Finland 36 floods 70, 83, 93, 96, 103, 133, 192, 257, 302; flood insurance 207, 209–10; flood security 289–90, 293, 302 flower 226 food security 5, 14, 37, 50, 76, 86, 133, 138, 148, 211, 280, 293, 321 Hague ‘water security’ declaration 41 harmonisation 8,195 hazards 9, 34, 53, 74, 103, 133, 193, 223, 292 health 14, 26, 49, 64, 133, 187, 210, 223, 256, 308 Himalayan glaciers 86 homeland security 56, Human Development Index 188 human life 39 human right to water 8, 19, 38, 307, 338 Human Rights Council 38, 308 human security 14, 55, 133, 166, 241, 289, 342 human water security 6, 39, 64, 144, 197 Hurricane Katrina 210, 294 hydrology 30, 64, 82, 170, 206, 324 hydromentalities 256 hydropolitics 4, 101 hydropower 4, 104, 117, 133, 171, 263, 339 hydro-social cycle 11 India 14, 26, 91, 115, 140, 172, 204, 225, 248, 274, 347 indicators 6, 69, 183, 196, 281, 324, 336 Indus 26, 74, 86 Index infrastructure insecurities 6, 29, 126, 239, 240, 247, 256, 341, 346 insurance 83, 205, 205, 224, 292, 343 interconnectedness 5, interdependence 6, 27, 228 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 13, 82, 133 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 38, 309 International Boundary Waters Commission 34 International Centre for Agriculture Research in the Dry Areas International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 38 international relations (IR) 4, 103, 269, 273, 274 international water law 19, 28, 30 International Water Management Institute 67 international water resources management investment 65, 105, 126, 136, 154, 170, 189, 205, 223, 244, 268, 302, 325 Ireland 83 irrigation 27, 36, 64, 75, 103, 117, 138, 150, 171, 190, 212, 244, 256, 290, 328 Israel 19, 68, 168, 324 Jordan 108, 168, 324 justice 11, 31, 160, 229, 246, 282, 308, 339 Karnali River 171 Kazakhstan 168 Kenya 37, 65, 83, 214, 229, 307, 310 knowledge generation 35 Kuwait 124 Kyrgyzstan 168 land use change 71, 91 Laos 36, 105, 172 law 4, 26, 141, 168, 196, 222, 239; lawmaking 248 legal platform 15 Libyan 274 Limpopo 74, 104, 108 livelihoods 26, 136, 173, 190, 208, 241, 256, 308, 326 Luxembourg 35 355 Mediterranean 70, 84 Mekong River Basin 36, 105, 167, 172, 174 Mekong River Commission (MRC) 36, 172 Mersey Basin 223 Mexico 34, 72, 140, 144, 217 Middle East 14, 59, 125, 275, 334 Middle Eastern 50, 127 militarisation 6, 27 military security 5, 27, 55, 57, 59 municipal water use 102 Murray-Darling River 133, 143, 144, 324 Myanmar 5, 14, 15, 26, 111, 157, 273, 298 navigation 30, 172, 222, 339 Nepal 171 Netherlands 120, 290 Nexus 11, 14, 17, 18, 37, 50, 118, 148, 271 Nile Basin 12, 17, 37, 126, 169 Nile Basin Initiative 12 non-food-water 321–3, 328, 330 nonstationarity 81, 88 Norway 36 Okavango River 102, 109–11 Pakistan 26, 126, 144, 229, 278 participation 28, 41, 143, 160, 215, 223, 252, 299, 349 peaceful 28, 41, 168 perceptions 83, 160, 194, 205, 226, 244, 260, 276, 349 perspectives, principles and practices political ecology 4, 11, 205, 291 political economy 4, 176, 215, 221, 258, 278, 294, 322 politicisation 26, 291, 301–2 politics of fear pollution 6, 28, 31, 133, 139, 141, 209, 227, 345 population 26, 65, 84, 101, 116, 131, 136, 148, 166, 188, 261, 273, 300, 307, 322, 346; population growth 26, 66, 88, 275 poverty 26, 37, 65, 136, 149, 152, 166, 183, 239, 279, 322, 348 precautionary 31, 324 precipitation see rainfall 30, 64, 80, 119, 189 private sector engagement 213, 220, 233 356 Index probability 161, 192–3, 205–7, 303 problemshed 11 productivity 5, 72, 122, 148, 192, 230, 322, 345 Protocol on Water and Health 39 public health see also human health 51, 53, 210 Qatar 124 Ramsar Convention 32, 33, 132 reallocation see also allocation 140, 167, 213 Red River 324 regulation 6, 33, 140, 193, 214, 226, 245, 262, 315 Rhine 35, 301, 303 Rio Grande 34 Rio+20 29, 50 River Maas 300 River Meuse 298, 300 Russia 36, 124, 126, 211, 289 Rwanda 37 saltwater incursion 81 sanitation 14, 39, 169, 184, 223, 249, 257, 307 Saudi Arabia 68, 124–5 scientific knowledge 174 Scotland 295 securitization 6, 27, 41, 150, 156, 220 Senegal Water Charter 36, 37, 40 share management 8, 256, 262, 263, 269 simplification 173, 260, 265 Singapore 259, 292, 323 social equity 26, 221 soil water 12, 13, 17, 21, 339 solar power 117, 125 South Africa 67, 74, 91, 104, 123, 169, 195, 213, 224, 310 Southern African Development Community 31, 74, 173 Soviet Union 36 Spain 124, 127, 268 Starvation 39 strategic dimensions 273 sub-Saharan 70, 71, 110, 156, 170, 190, 192, 275, 308, 329 Tanzania 37, 105, 141, 214, 225 Tennessee Valley Authority 135, 137 terrorism 49, 53, 56, 274, 277, 279 terrorist attacks 27 Thailand 36, 105, 172, 208, 210, 211, 263 The Nature Conservancy 131, 132 threat 5, 8, 26, 64, 82, 116, 130, 151, 172, 189, 200, 231, 239, 273, 289, 329 thresholds 8, 13, 19, 80, 94, 189 Tigris Euphrates 324 Tijuana Rivers 34 tipping points 80, 203 transboundary water security 7, 166 transparency 193, 224, 226–7, 230, 259, 291 Uganda 37, 214 UK 15, 19, 83, 84, 89, 121, 131, 213, 223, 224, 226, 275, 276, 278, 303, 326, 330 Ukraine 126 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 38 UN General Assembly 19, 28, 38 UNESCO’s Institute for Water Education 49 UN-Habitat 101–2, 106 United Arab Emirates 124 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 33 Urbanised 5, 101–2 valuing water 28, 41, 57 Vietnam 36, 172 virtual water 13, 14, 103, 115, 158, 169, 224, 278, 280, 282, 342 volumetric 3, 104, 190, 224, 227, 256, 258, 340, 342 vulnerability 8, 53, 71, 85, 159, 193, 206, 224, 321 Washington State Green River 89 water availability 6, 30, 52, 67, 80, 113, 163, 179, 208, 226, 273, 335 water control 242, 256 water crowding 55, 66, 189 water cycle 12, 27, 69 water footprint 14, 103, 119, 135, 193, 220, 327 Water Framework Directive 31, 140, 343 water governance 4, 59, 74, 173, 215, 220, 239 water management 6, 16, 32, 49, 66, 82, 101, 131, 149, 167, 188, 221, 245, 256, 280, 329, 336 Index water markets 209, 211–2 water poverty index 187, 341 water productivity 5, 72, 148, 192, 322, 346 water quality 6, 31, 49, 76, 86, 122, 136, 190, 213, 222, 283, 313, 338 water regulation 246 water rights 196, 209, 239 water security web 7, 11 water shortage 55, 69, 122, 154, 225, 268 water stewardship 220, 322 water stress 6, 13, 55, 65, 84, 189, 211, 223 water trading see also water markets 209–10, 212 water transfers 102–3, 344 water vendors 214, 312, 314 water wars 57, 274, 277, 283 WaterAid 185, 223 watershed models 12 357 watershed science 12 wetland 31, 110, 130, 194, 258 WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation 307, 310 World Bank 27, 37, 83, 95, 116, 122, 141, 197, 213, 242, 258, 308 World Commission on Dams 105, 136 World Economic Forum 14, 49, 157, 275 World Meteorological Organization 115 World War II 67 World Water Forum 28, 55, 59, 71, 148, 166 WWF 130, 141, 173, 224, 227 Yangtze 86, 122, 133 Yellow River 74, 86, 122, 140 Zambezi River 105 Zambia 214