World Water Week

7/27/2019 World Water Week

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/world-water-week 1/53

IN3TOCKHOLM!UGUSTn

2006 Synthesis



0 06 WO RL D WAT ER W EE K SY NT HE SI S

ContentsHighlights ................................................................3

Overarching Conclusions .........................................4

Policy Conclusions ................................................... 5

Scientic Conclusions ..............................................7

Business and Industry Conclusions ..........................9

NGO Conclusions .................................................. 11

Workshop Conclusions ...................................... 13–22

Panel Debate Outcome ..........................................23

Seminar Conclusions ........................................24–43

Side Event Conclusions ......................................44–46

Prizes and Awards .............................................47–51

List o Convenors ....................................................52

Note to the ReaderIn its role as organiser and host o the 2006 World Water

Week in Stockholm, the Stockholm International Water

Institute has taken upon itsel the responsibility to author

the Overarching, Policy, Business and Scientic conclu-

sions ound in this document. On SIWI’s behal, Mr. Felix

Dodds o the Stakeholder Forum or a Common Future

authored the NGO conclusions.

As such, the statements and opinions contained therein

do not necessarily refect the ocial position o the

co-convening organisations o the 2006 World Water

Week. Rather, they represent SIWI’s synthesis , prepared

or the benet o the participants and the broader water

and development communities, o the range o issues,

ideas and viewpoints addressed during the week in

their totality.

The Workshop, Seminar and Side Event conclusions, on

the other hand, are contributed by the respective co-

convening organisations.

SIWI is also responsible or authoring the Panel

Debate, Prize and Award conclusions.



0 06WOR L DWAT ERW EEKS Y N T HE SI S

Highlights

The 2006 World Water Week in Stockholm eatured a

number o new agreements, initiatives, launches andcelebrations.

• To ght corruption in the water sector, the Water Integrity

Network (WIN) was launched by the International Water

and Sanitation Centre, Stockholm International Water

Institute, Swedish Water House, Transparency International

and Water and Sanitation Program-Arica. AquaFed joined

the Network during the week as well. For more inormation,

visit www.waterintegritynetwork.net. The Swedish Water

House, together with WIN, launched “Corruption in the

Water Sector: Causes, Consequences and Potential Reorm,”

a policy brie available at www.swedishwaterhouse.se• The Comprehensive Assessment o Water Management in

Agriculture revealed insights rom its examination o policies

and practices o water use and development in agriculture over

the last 50 years. For more inormation, visit www.iwmi.org

• Through a presentation o the synthesis and the nal report

o the 4th World Water Forum, the outcomes o the Forum,

held in Mexico in March 2006, were presented. One o the

examples o concrete outputs o the Forum presented was

the creation o the Asia-Pacic-Water Forum (APWF). To

download the reports, visit www.worldwaterorum4.org.mx

• The Global Water Partnership (GWP) celebrated its 10thanniversary with a Consulting Partners meeting to review

its achievements and guide its uture strategic ocus.

H.R.H. The Prince o Orange also launched a celebratory

book, “The Boldness o Small Steps.” More inormation

and the book’s introductory chapter in several languages

are available at www.gwporum.org

• A Memorandum o Understanding (MOU) signed by

SIWI and the Council o Scientic and Industrial Research

(CSIR) South Arica aimed to oster knowledge creation

that leads to concrete water-driven social, economic and

environmental improvements.

• Proessor Asit K. Biswas o the Third World Centre or

Water Management in Mexico received the 2006 Stock-

holm Water Prize, worth usd 150,000, or “outstanding

achievements” rom the hands o H.R.H. Crown Princess

Victoria o Sweden.

• Mr. Wang Hao, Mr. Weng Jie and Ms. Xiao Yi rom China

were awarded the 2006 Stockholm Junior Water Prize. The

students rom Shanghai received the Prize rom the hands

o H.R.H. Crown Princess Victoria or a project on using

low-cost, ecologically riendly technology to restore a pol-

luted urban river channel.

• The World Agroorestry Centre (ICRAF) released policy brie ndings which provide insight into the ways trees

can be best managed to advance watershed managementobjectives and the implications or watershed management

policy and programme design. For more inormation, visit

www.worldagroorestry.org

• The United Nations Environment Programme highlighted

dramatic and damaging environmental changes with

“Arica’s Lakes: Atlas o Our Changing Environment.” The

atlas compares and contrasts satellite images o the past ew

decades with contemporary ones. For more inormation,

visit na.unep.net/AricaLakes/

• WWF released a report, “Rich Countries, Poor Water,”

which showed that a combination o climate change,

drought and loss o wetlands, along with poorly thoughtout water inrastructure and resource mismanagement, is

creating a truly global crisis. It documents water problems

in countries such as Australia, Spain, USA and Japan. For

more inormation, visit www.ww.org

• UN-Water announced “Coping With Water Scarcity” as

the theme or the next UN World Water Day on March 22,

2007. For more inormation, visit www.unwater.org

• The World Business Council or Sustainable Development

launched a new report, “Business in the World o Water

– WBCSD Water Scenarios to 2025,” which looks at possi-

ble utures or business and society. For more inormation,visit www.wbcsd.org

• SIWI and the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)

launched the Green-Blue Initiative (GBI) together with

several core partners. The goal o the initiative is to urther

green water policy development and proper linkages to

land use management policies. For more inormation, visit

www.siwi.org

• The Navigating Peace Initiative at the Wilson Centre

launched two new policy bries, one on cooperation around

water and the other on groundwater in Southern Arica,

in connection with the Week. For more inormation, visit

www.wilsoncentre.org/water

• The Arican Ministers’ Conerence on Water and sev-

eral partners produced the “Stockholm Message on

Transboundary Groundwater or Arica” and agreed on

establishing a ollow-up process to support countries in

strengthening transboundary groundwater cooperation.

• Sydney Water received the 2006 Stockholm Industry Water

Award in honour o its innovative “Every Drop Counts

(EDC) Business Program.”

• The 2006 Swedish Baltic Sea Water Award was presented

to Mr. Björn Carlson or his donation o sek 500 million

(usd 62.6 million) or projects and initiatives whichcontribute to improved water quality in the Baltic Sea.




Overarching Conclusions

Can wider sharing o the benets derived rom water (i not

the water itsel ) among riparian countries reduce tensions and

improve livelihoods in transboundary basin settings? Does

benet-sharing drive development, improve access to water and

sanitation services, stimulate ood- and energy production and

decrease pollution?

Because water is unevenly available around the world, and

benet sharing is one possible way to even out this physical

reality, the 2006 World Water Week ocused considerably onseeking answers to questions about the approach, as well as po-

tential policy options.

What did we learn? Although benet sharing has worked in

some basins due to bi- and multi-lateral agreements, improved

institutions, and strong basin organisations, the theory provides

one reality while lie’s lessons oten provide quite another. Basins

are dierent and blue-print solutions don’t exist; thus, theories

aside, the questions posed above nd their answers in the rela-

tions between humans. As some participants said, i you cannot

even develop a system to share the physical resource o water,

how can you expect to develop systems to share benets (and with them, the implicitly shared vision, values and rights)?

Many seminars showed how most basins are dominated

clearly by one or a ew countries (hegemons) that benet, at

least or now, rom securitising water. Power usually denes

transboundary relations, not solidarity or ethics.

The way orward is to rst accept that building successul

transboundary water management involves many aspects and is

a lietime commitment o involved partners. Second, ensure the

availability o reliable data and inormation that can be shared

transparently by all parties. Third, understand and respect the in-

fuence o politics beyond not just the river, but beyond the water

sector; issues o security, trade, culture, economy, etc., are relevant.

Fourth, in addition to managing the water, manage the relations

with people and institutions by communicating and coming to

agreement with all concerned peoples and stakeholders.

A revolutionary approach? No, but nonetheless these our

steps are challenging in practice. The common denominator

is trust among all actors. On the bright side, the week showed

how trust is oten easiest to build rom below. So-called Track

II initiatives can play a critical role, stimulating co-operation

among non-governmental actors (including scientic and tech-

nical experts).

And what o both transboundary and national water man-agement in the ace o climate change? As French polymath

Paul Valery said: “The trouble with our times is that the

uture is not what it used to be.” Vulnerability to natural cli-

mate variability has increased because o the way our societies

are planned and organised, how we live and which natural re-

sources we consume. More than ever, we are tampering widely

with our climate, adding a critical risk actor that makes plan-

ning or the uture even harder.

Climate change may orce us to accept with nality that ull

control over our uture is not possible. It may challenge the way we manage water and stimulate water governance so that it is

both decentralised, sector-wise, to allow or fexibility, and cen-

tralised, basin-wise, to cope with complex interactions between

actors and systems.

Coping with both foods and droughts wil l be even more

important in the uture. The UN system placed “Coping with

Scarcity” centre-stage with its 2007 World Water Day theme.

Adaptat ion st rategies are increasingly important and requ ire

cooperation among actors at all levels in society. Urban areas,

where 93% o all deaths due to fooding occur, are particularly

important. Urbanisation trends are thereore an integral part o the climate change issue, though water experts haven’t priori-

tised the connection highly enough.

The third major issue on the 2006 World Water Week

agenda is the most critical water resource issue or the uture:

water or ood. Producing enough ood or uture generations

will require basin-wide planning and a ocus on both rain ed

and irrigated agriculture. Improved management o rivers is

required, but also o groundwater. In transboundary settings,

such hydrologic systems increase complexity and complicate

interaction and communication between up-stream and down-

stream users.

Under current management, rivers are drying up, basins are

“closing” (i.e. all water committed), groundwater levels are all-

ing and rain is being used ineciently. People are also consum-

ing more. Ultimately, confict between dierent users (though

less likely countries) may result. In seminars, cases demonstrat-

ed synergies between sustainable ood production and ecosys-

tem benets. Innovative approaches and knowledge exist, but

science needs better integration with policy making.

Transboundary water management, climate change and wa-

ter, and water or ood were in ocus during the week, but many

other issues were on the agenda. We hope the summaries and

conclusions rom those in this report will be inspiring, stimu-lating and thought-provoking.

P h o t o : S I W I



Policy Conclusions

The sharing o transboundary water is challenging or many

countries and sub-regions around the world. Some countries,

particularly those upstream, perceive comprehensive cooperation

as being too risky; they don’t want to negotiate away uture wa-

ter uses. For many upstream countries or downstream countries

with hegemonic (dominant) status in a sub-region, realpolitik

still dominates power politics. The notion o sub-regional politi-

cal, economic and cultural interdependence is yet to be ully ac-

knowledged and explored. The politics which water management within a basin (including groundwater basins) is subordinated to

provide the lens through which transboundary water manage-

ment needs to be analysed. Thus, eorts to de-link water rom

the overall political situation are utile. Rather, one could (and

indeed should) make use o the potential uniying power that a

transboundary water resource provides to increase the sharing

o benets, deepen dialogue and thereby assist in economic de-

velopment. I this is to materialise, an unrelenting eort by the

countries and the donor community is needed.

A number o obstacles to eective management o trans-

boundary waters exist today. Indeed, the weakness o interna-tional law is as apparent in transboundary water situations as in

other areas; the power o the hegemons in a basin to “get their

way” at the expense o the weak is evident, and regional institu-

tions are oten impotent in overcoming political obstacles due

to national considerations. The Water Week repeatedly showed

how hydro-hegemons can shape the nature o interaction – or

unilateral or collective good.

I joint management o transboundary waters is achieved and

a situation in which benets are shared can be accomplished,

this process could make a signicant contribution to global

peace and stability, as well as to poverty reduction. Indeed, co-

operation on such waters is imperative to a better recognition o

ecological issues and requirements, economic development and

poverty reduction, and it is notable that many o the Millen-

nium Development Goals (MDGs) are dependent on the avail-

ability o adequate water resources in one manner or another.

More than hal o the available global blue water resource is

fowing in shared basins. From a ood production perspective

this is important. In order to eed the growing world population

cooperation and rational utilisation o the scarce global water re-

sources o the world is imperative. However, to eed the growing

population o the world it is also critical to reemphasising (new)

solutions o using rainwater. Thus to reap the large ood benetsrom the underutilised green water a new water management

paradigm needs to be put in place. It is important to remem-

ber the relationship between ood and trade. For decades, ood

importing countries have beneted rom the alleviation o their

strategic water shortage with highly subsidised imported ood

rom the North temperate regions. Though this relationship can

relieve the burden on some countries to be ood sel-sucient, it

also places the weak and non-diversied economies in the South

at risk, should the relationship somehow change.

From a natural resources perspective improved transbound-ary water management is also imperative. The benets that

could be reaped rom or example an improved food control

in a transboundary river could help to mitigate the eects o

foods, thus creating benets or the downstream country. The

upstream country could be compensated or that service. There

are agreements to this extent; however, these concentrate main-

ly on sharing the resource physically, but not the benets. This

has helped to avoid conficts in the past but is not sucient or

a widespread regional development.

The so-called Track II processes in transboundary water can

provide a long-term path or improved cooperation betweengovernments (Track I). Track II entails lower level stakeholder

cooperation on, or example, technical and research coopera-

tion, and national capacity building on Integrated Water Re-

sources Management (IWRM) to level the playing eld. But

Track II only develops in conducive environments. It cannot

P h o t o : S I W I

P h o t o :

M a t s L a n n e r s t a d




balance weak regulatory or governance conditions. This has to

be acknowledged by both donor and recipient countries.

There is a need to set new unding mechanisms in place or

countries sharing the same basin. Such new unding mecha-

nisms should address both regional cooperation as well as

national IWRM capacities. Generating cooperation in trans-

boundary basins largely consists o promoting a process o

building collaborative structures and institutions, commonly at both the national and regional levels. For a donor or other

unding organisation to engage in building such cooperative

structures in a shared river basin demands courage and a vision

that must transcend the lietime o a single project. A ‘Shared

Waters Facility’, tasked to support processes o transboundary

water co-operation, in which negotiation support is included,

may be a way orward. Also, a seminar in Stockholm revealed

the critical role (and need to strengthen) existing river basin

organisations, nationally as well as in transboundary settings.

One thing to note, however, is that decentralised solutions

– particularly in the area o water supply and sanitation – can

be useul even within the broader context o integrated plan-ning and management. There are sector experts and specialists,

and they should be used.

Economic valuation is recognised as an important element o

water management and provides a key that can assist in the deci-

sion making process. One such tool gaining increasing attention

is compensation. An example o a compensation scheme within

a river basin setting is payment provided to upstream inhabitants

or land and water management practices that promote main-

tenance and enhancement o downstream ecosystem services as

well as protection against foods. This can create economic win-

win situations in which both or countries are interested. Com-pensation schemes should be both short- and long-term oriented,

and it is important to recognise that they can be applied in a

proactive way to conserve existing ecosystems and their services,

as well as restore already degraded ecosystems. Compensation

can take a number o orms, including direct payment, sot cred-

its and certication. It can also be used as a platorm or negoti-

ating and dening a range o human and environmental rights,

such as water rights. Challenges acing this area o valuation are

the issue o distribution o compensation benets and evaluating

otherwise unrecognised services.

Good water governance is dicult to achieve due to the

amount o corruption in the water sector in many places. The

Water Week ound that anti-corruption lessons rom other sec-

tors can be tailored to the water sector and to national governance

reorms. To ght corruption, building political commitment and

broad-based stakeholder engagement is critical. Preventive rather

than reactive methods are most eective, or once entrenched in

social and economic systems, corruption is dicult to remove.

Policy also includes the gender component. The week em-

phasised that clear perormance indicators or gender sen-sitivity in water projects are needed. It is politically correct to

pay lip service to gender these days, but it is also time to hold

governments, organisations and institutions accountable or

gender mainstreaming. Concrete measures include gender sen-

sitive budgeting, education and involvement o youth, mentor-

ing, and making partnerships eective in achieving the goal o

gender mainstreaming.

It is noted on the ecosystem side, or example, that wetlands

can act as buers against fooding and also mitigate adverse

environmental results.

For sae water storage and regulation during loods and

droughts, multi-dimensional and harmonised cooperation or e-cient management o water resources is required to reduce impacts

o foods and droughts. Policies should promote the development

o eective experience which enables the careul processing o

inormation and provides links to stakeholders in an appropriate

manner. A strong call or strategic planning to reduce the impacts

o foods and droughts was issued in Stockholm.

Forecasting o foods and droughts were discussed with par-

ticular intensity. It is essential, since it helps to raise preparedness

and mitigate impacts. The challenge is to translate orecasts into

easible public awareness campaigns. Also, multi-dimensional

concepts/approaches to deal with multiple issues are needed andshould consider structural and non-structural issues, entire ba-

sins and the whole cycle o risk management. Finally, utilities re-

quire improved training, capacity development and best practice

awareness raising on emergency preparedness.

I countries are unable to share water they might be more at-

tracted to share benets beyond water because o the advantag-

es stemming rom that. To build political will, trust and incen-

tives or increased benet sharing, it is important to continue to

develop methodologies or benet sharing beyond water itsel.

This is not an easy task and will require urther enhancement

o trade and economic ties between countries sharing the same

surace and groundwater.

P h o t o : S I W I

6 0 06 WO RL D WAT ER W EE K SY NT HE SI S




Scientic Conclusions

Scientic issues in Stockholm had a series o interrelated aspects as

a backdrop. One was the importance o data and inormation, a

necessary pre-requisite in the work o scientists as well as lay people.

Another was methodologies or analysis o data/inormation and

interpretation o the ndings. A third was how to acilitate the ac-

cessibility and understanding o scientically based knowledge. A

ourth aspect ocused on time: new circumstances may make some

knowledge irrelevant. This kind o contextual premise extends the

thinking rom previous World Water Weeks, namely that knowl-

edge must be related to cultural and other (local) contexts.Development perspectives that permeated in Stockholm in-

cluded: water-related phenomena in the landscape, living with

change, and the need or analytical tools that improve our abil-

ity to attach values to dierent goods and services. A crucial

interace between science, interest groups and improved man-

agement/governance was repeatedly demonstrated. Science en-

hances the likelihood o reasonable control and monitoring o

processes in society as well as in the landscape.

The overarching theme “Beyond the River – Sharing Ben-

ets and Responsibilities” actually encompasses benets rom

the river, because o the river, beyond the river, and to the river.

Generally, knowledge about tangible benets rom the river

and beyond it or hydropower, irrigation potential and water

supply is well developed. But once humans intervene in the ba-

sin, the size, quality and types o di erent benets – as well as

costs – are altered.

Within the basin, some knowledge may be generated through

modelling (hydrological, optimisation, orecasting, etc.). In a

perect world, models would refect the complex reality in basins ;

data availability and quality prevent this. Nonetheless modelling

tools can assist decision makers in addressing risk and uncertain-

ty e.g. in agricultural water management. Hydrological models

deal with the supply side, optimisation models with allocation,and crop water requirement and demand orecast models o-

cus on the water demand side. It is relevant to link modelling

to scenarios, to identiy what may happen in a river or basin.

Combining scenarios with models will be useul in stakeholder

discussions, role plays or policy ormulation and in institutional

reviews. These kinds o tools may help to bypass emotional argu-

ments and misdirected assumptions. Real time inormation is

relevant, or example, in eorts to prevent foods and to decide

on quotas or allocation during a season.

Remember, rainall is a basic water resource or local com-

munities as well as in transboundary contexts! More knowl-edge is needed about enhancing the water resource by captur-

ing more rainall in water-scarce areas and in basins where the

fow in rivers is partially or totally committed. More must also

be known about how water and land use changes in one part o

the basin aect other parts in the basin.

Groundwater, though clearly a signicant source o water

in arid and semi-arid regions, is a big unknown. Data and in-

ormation systems should refect and analyse the connection

between ground and surace water and also land. Such systems

should be part o IWRM and are required to understand and

monitor links between development and resource utilisation.

Subject-wise, inormation and analysis is lacking on the eco-

logical goods and services accruing rom the river and beyond.

Data, methodology and valuation are challenging. Without re-

liable and precise inormation, proper knowledge o ecological

goods and services is not possible. In addition, our understand-

ing o the dierent types o value that are provided by dier-

ent ecosystems needs improving. Value, however, varies; a “ree

fowing river” means dierent things to dierent people, in-

cluding scientists. Still, scientists – in collaboration with other

stakeholders – are positioned best to develop methodologies or

these kinds o analyses.

New and additional knowledge concerning best practice willalways be important since social systems are always changing. Use

P h o t o : S I W I




o economic instruments, or instance, is guided by little empiri-

cally tested knowledge. In subsistence-oriented societies, inorma-

tion about how to combine social services, micro-credits, insur-

ance, etc., is lacking.

Better instruments are also required to promote desirable

action by governments or positive upstream-downstream rela-

tions. Better knowledge about the potential to increase aggre-

gate benets and identication o strategies or how to share

benets is particularly important in transboundary contexts.In principle, the same question is valid in other contexts, e.g.

between urban and rural sectors. “Sharing” must be linked to

responsibilities and initiatives to generate benets across the

basin. Schemes, or instance, may compensate upstream inhab-

itants or land and water management practises that promote

maintenance and enhancement o downstream water or ecosys-

tem services.

Open and transparent communication to various groups is

vital. Otherwise, there is a high risk o governance ailure. Sim-

ilarly, the development and implementation o IWRM depends

on an open dia logue between stakeholders.Special concern was devoted to ood and environmental

security. Food and biomass production is the major human ap-

propriation o reshwater. Improving water resources manage-

ment to reduce poverty and hunger is the most signicant water

challenge o our t ime, particularly since ecosystem degradation

must be avoided. It will be necessary to identiy a range o op-

tions rom pure rain ed to irrigated agriculture and combina-

tions o land use, water management and nutrient supply

that promise multiple benets: increased yields, productivity,

ecosystem sustainability and livelihood improvement. Adding

a little blue water to smallholder rain ed systems aids poverty

reduction and production gains . Similarly, nutrient-rich hu-

man excreta should be used in production systems. Boosting

knowledge about these opportunities is essential and advocacy

is required to disseminate knowledge.

Consumptive water use in the production o animal prod-

ucts exemplies where conventional knowledge needs to be

revisited and additional insights added. Today, there is no com-

mon methodology or calculating livestock water productivity.

Livestock that (partly) eed on crop residues and by-products

benet rom water that is already accounted or in grain pro-

duction. On the other hand, it seems as i a larger raction o

livestock will eed on grain systems i.e. ood is used or eed. With increasing economic development and purchasing power,

it is urgent to advance our understanding o water implications

o uture production systems and preerences in diet.

What about the increasing pressure on land and water resources

or energy crop cultivation? Bio-uel production will be needed

which does not compromise ood security and environmental sus-

tainability. For armers, shiting crops to bio-energy production

may oer advantages. What kind o institutional arrangements are

relevant in this new context to deal with new types o risk and op-

portunity? Poverty reduction and ecosystem protection cannot beundertaken successully without managing risks and opportunities.

Better inormation systems, orecasting models and com-

munication is needed to mitigate the adverse eects o extreme

natural events. The number one priority is to avoid looming epi-

demics o water-related diseases in the wake o foods, typhoons

and similar disasters. In emergency response eorts, however,

sanitation oten lags behind medical care, ood and water supply,

but it is just as important in protecting public health.

A crosscutting concern about a more strategic role or sci-

entic knowledge is the plea or better data, inormation and

communication systems. This includes data input in the analy-ses and the communication o results, between scientists and

between scientic communities, decision makers and relevant

interest groups. New knowledge must also be promoted. A

plethora o questions beg or answers: the consequences o cli-

mate change, co-management or ood, ecosystems and energy

security and resilience, changes in consumer preerences and

implications o increases in purchasing power.

So, rom a scientic point o view, what can be done to

deal with water-related phenomena in the landscape, live with

change, and est ablish a reasonable amount o control in our

river basins? For one, governance systems must be promulgated

which are fexible and enable compatibilit y bet ween dierent

water-related needs in a r iver basin. Second, the scientic, ex-

pert and policy making communities must accept that their

“reality” is only a partial one; they must think – or collaborate

– along integrated, holistic lines. Third, as our work transcends

generations, policy and other decision makers must be encour-

aged to think along intergenerational lines, since the plan-

ning is complicated due to long time rames (or lake recovery,

groundwater rehabilitation, etc.); the degree o responsibility to

our grandchildren might be a key driving orce! Finally, educa-

tion and communication must be emphasised, as it will link

best knowledge to policy making.

P h o t o : S I W I



Business and Industry Conclusions

O the many sectors represented at the World Water Week

in Stockholm, business and industry are critically important.

The sector combines or some 20% o global water use on an

annual basis, and livelihood improvement in many develop-

ing countries is tied to business and industry growth (which

also increases water demand). Business and industry activities

also, on the downside, i not properly operated have the abil-

ity to harm the natural resource base through pollution and

over-consumption. On the other hand, business and indus-

try are oten at the oreront o technological innovation andmarket-based incentives that improve productivity and also

protect the environment.

Thus, the challenges or business and industry in dealing

with water problems are increasingly discussed in Stockholm.

This year, issues o growing signicance that oer enormous

opportunities but also risks or businesses, particularly in re-

lation to physical water scarcity as well as lood situations,

were addres sed. The prospect o water shortages , s ca rcit ies

and stresses will increase in pace with a growing population,

increasing urbanisation, increasing water demand coupled to

social and economic development, climate change, etc. Without water, businesses ail ; where water is, investment

occurs. And when industry invests – as many multinational

corporations are doing increasingly in developing countries

– it looks to secure water or its operations. Sometimes, se-

curing a sae water supply or acilities also means securing

it or those living around them. And sometimes securing

a healthy operating environment means securing the health o

the surrounding community through adequate sanitation.

But industry can also be a powerul competitor or available

water resources and a major source o pollution. Conficts and

competition can thus arise: with agriculture, the traditionally

dominant water user in most developing countries; with ast-

growing cities thirsty or water; and with activists who paint

a broad picture that industry is a lways to blame – airly or not

– or water-related problems.

In Stockholm, it was shown that business and industry can

contribute with knowledge and experience when problems

related to water scarcity or fooding are addressed locally or

regionally. Contribution can be direct business involvement

but also in joint ventures with local authorities with the aim

to ind win-win solutions. New opportunities will develop

or the building o inrastructure, developing and using new

technologies, and developing and implementing new types o planning or urban and rural areas. The challenge o increas-

ing e iciency in water use to minimise impacts on the lo-

cal population and to ensure that they have enough water or

their needs is obvious.

Many seminars and side events emphasised that multi-stake-

holder partnerships should be developed and include local au-

thorities, non governmental organisations and businesses to

develop a trustul cooperation and to speed up development by

making use o the knowledge and experiences o the company.

Water can drive poverty reduction and national development,

and here business investment can be crucial. But to create theenvironment where investment in water resources management

and water supply and sanitation is encouraged, institutional ca-

pacities, training needs, markets and nancing mechanisms,

time scales o mandate periods, and return on investments and

beneciaries need to be considered. Benchmarking and learn-

ing rom other sectors is helpul in convincing policymakers

that investing in water is a sound economic strategy.

One way to build investor condence, particularly in de-

veloping countries, is to cut down on corruption. A welcome

initiative was the launch o the anti-corruption Water Integ-

rity Network. Corruption, rom petty to g rand, drains the water sector by siphoning o exist ing nancial resources and


P h o t o : S I W I



discouraging uture investments in water resources manage-

ment and water supply and sanitation delivery. Ultimately,

the poor and their pursuit o socio-economic empowerment

suer where corruption exists. By lending their expertise in

battling corruption – through accountability, transparency

and other such eorts – businesses can be leading contribu-

tors to the anti-corruption eorts in the water sector. A high-level panel at the Founders Seminar concluded ,

among others, that a company’s policies and actions should go

beyond the basic limits o responsibility and in act seek op-

portunities in supporting community water supply and sani-

tation. With such a strategy, trustul relations can be built up

together with the local population and unnecessary conficts

regarding water resources and pollution avoided.

Economic tools to steer the use o water are still underdevel-

oped and incompletely used, as one World Water Week work-

shop concluded. One problem is that their implementation is

institutionally and politically demanding. Still, approaches

such as micro-nancing, subsidies, water markets, quantitativequotas or rights or using water can be eective in the right

environment, but only when social considerations are taken

into account. South Arica’s water law, which provides subsi-

dised water to the poorest o the poor, is one example. It was

pointed out that there is a dierence, o course, between eco-

nomic instruments or modern economic sectors and those or

traditional water-related sectors such as subsistence arming.

Food trade and its infuence on the water situation was also

addressed. One o the conclusions was that weak and non-

diversied economies in the South do not have the nancial

and social capacity to cope i, or example, exporting coun-tries (usually Northern) begin to pass on the cost o the en-

vironmental degradation o their ood-production or export.

Nonetheless, in order to be able to eed the world’s growing

population and at the same time reduce water consumption,

a rapid development o both general technology and biotech-

nology is needed. Here business and industry have a great

challenge and opportunity to play a decisive role. There are

also great opportunities to come or companies in developing

as well as in developed countries in the growing international

trade with ood.A shining example o how business can contribute locally

was Sydney Water, rom Austra lia , t he 2006 Stockholm In-

dustry Water Award winner. Through its “Every Drop Counts

Business Program,” Sidney Water succeeded in demonstrating

the business case or water conservation in diverse sectors o

activity. It developed practical methodologies, act sheets, case

studies, best practises and benchmarking data that support

programme participants but are easily replicated in other water

scarce regions.

In dealing with climate and water-related risks, business and

industry were seen as actors who are crucial to developing strat-

egies which reduce the risks or loss o lives and economic val-ues. Business and industry with experience rom coping with

risks o dierent kinds have good opportunities or transerring

this skill and sharing their experiences with local and regional

politicians, authorities and organisations.

The 2006 World Water Week demonstrated that business

and industry, with its knowledge, skill and experience, can con-

tribute in solving problems caused by water scarcity as well as

fooding. Companies should take the initiative or be invited

to partnerships with local authorities, NGOs and other stake-

holders and share their knowledge and experience with them in

order to oster a positive cooperation. The water industry cantake initiatives to improve the ecient use o water in water

scarce regions, as demonstrated by Sydney Water.

10 00 6 WO R LD W AT ER W E EK S Y NT H ES IS

P h o t o : S I W I



0 06WOR L DWAT ERW EEKS Y N T HE SI S 11

NGO Conclusions

The World Water Week in Stockholm is a wonderul oppor-tunity or all stakeholders, governments and UN agencies to

discuss what is happening, what should be happening and some

o the policy options or partnerships that could make a dier-

ence in addressing why we are not achieving the targets and

agreements rom Rio or Johannesburg.

Only three weeks ater Stockholm, President Mbeki o

South Arica and the Current Chair o the Group o 77 and

China exploded the myth that the global partnership between

developed and developing countries is progressing in the right

direction. In a very hard hitting speech to the UN General As-

sembly, he said:

“Precisely because o the absence o a global partnership or

development, the Doha Development Round has almost col-

lapsed. Indeed, because the rich invoked, without shouting it,

the slogan o an over-condent European political party o the

1960’s, and directed this uncaring declaration to the poor o to-

day – ”I’m alright Jack!” – we have not implemented the Monter-

rey Consensus on Financing or Development, thus making it

dicult or the majority o the developing countries, especially

those in Arica, to achieve the Millennium Development Goals,

and have reduced the Johannesburg Plan o Implementation to

an insignicant and perhaps orgotten piece o paper.”

So it is with that landscape that I write this non-governmen-tal (NGO) perspective on Stockholm.

What has started to emerge over the past ve years is a new nexus o environment and security. The news hardly passes a

week without an issue o energy security being reported. As we

know, water security is already an issue, although right now

less o a visual one. Sharing benets in transboundary rivers is

one o the fash points, although not the only one, in the water

and security discourse. At present the discussion sees limited

prospects or addressing the needs and concerns o all who in-

habit a river basin. Usually the upriver communities or govern-

ments are reluctant to discuss better cooperation – an example

would be the Mekong Commission. NGOs have been advo-

cating transboundary stakeholder dialogue as a mechanism to

reduce tensions and to work creatively at nding ways to share

benets. The other issue raised during the week by the World

Business Council on Sustainable Development was that o the

possibility o trading in virtual water within twenty years, as we

are trading in carbon at the moment. Policy people should read

this proposal and start a dialogue with stakeholders now.

The increased interest around the world in biouels as a

mechanism to address energy security is one where there needs

some serious joined-up thinking. The increase in the use o wa-

ter or producing uel could have a dramatic impact on water

availability or people. As there is an increase in the competi-

tion or water, this will add yet another driver to basin closure.NGOs want a proper global dialogue on this.

P h o t o : S I W I By Mr. Felix Dodds, Executive Director o the Stakeholder Forum or a Sustainable Future




Underlining all o the discussion with water must be gender

mainstreaming in all policies, and the development in all coun-

tries o gender-sensitive budgeting. Ater all, at conerences and

summits over the last twenty-ve years it has been recognised

that those aected most by water scarcity are women and chil-

dren. Yet have the resources gone into this? One clear way to

address this would be a massive ocus on rainwater harvesting orschools, or rural communities and urban ones. The possibility

o building such schemes run and supported by the communi-

ties themselves perhaps don’t bring unds in to water companies,

but they can make a signicant role in providing water and in

perhaps reducing the fow o people rom rural to urban areas.

One o the interesting developments over the l ast couple

o years has been the move made by governments towards the

concepts o sustainable cities. China is about to embark on itsrst in Dontang – the nancial package was just launched or

unders in London. The move to address some o the critical

issues o closing loops in energy and wastewater is now possi-

ble to scale up. Utilising wastewater or providing energy has a

positive impact on climate change, and on the liveability o our

oceans. For the rst time at Stockholm there was an attempt

to start to join together the whole water cycle, rom hilltops to

oceans. The water community tends to be a divided commu-

nity between reshwater and seawater.

Companies, particularly in developing countries, need to be

held accountable or their corporate social responsibility (CSR).

NGOs have or a number o years now called or a Conventionon CSR. The work being undertaken by the Water Integrity

Network is a good voluntary initiative, but it needs to be under-

pinned by international law.

In conclusion, there were some positive sign posts that came

out o this year’s Stockholm meeting. In addition to the above,

another positive sign was the anniversary o the Global Wa-

ter Partnership and the review o what uture role it can take.

Also, there was an inormal discussion on utilising Stockholm

next year as the place to meet beore 2008 meeting o the UN

Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-2008) to re-

view our preparations. Related to this is the launch o a GlobalPublic Policy Network or Water and Sanitation to prepare or

CSD 2008 and CSD 2009 and input to the thematic issues o

energy and agriculture. The launch o the anti-corruption Wa-

ter Integrity Network was important, as was the discussion o

water security through river basin multistakeholder approaches

to managing water.

Still, there is not yet the political will to address the agenda

o Rio or Johannesburg in a signicant way, or water and sani-

tation in a specic way, either through adequate resources or

prioritisation. As we met in Stockholm, the Venice Film Fes-

tival was underway where they were premiering Bobby, a lm

about Senator Robert F. Kennedy. The lm received a seven-

minute standing ovation, perhaps in part recognising the lack

o signicant leaders we have at the moment. In one o his last

speeches that he made, Senator Kennedy gave that generation a

warning when he said:

“A revolution is coming – a revolution which will be peace-

ul i we are wise enough; compassionate i we care enough;

successul i we are ortunate enough–but a revolution which is

coming whether we will it or not. We can aect its character;

we cannot alter its inevitability.”

Let us be wise, let us care, but most o all, let us now articu-

late the challenges and mobilise the resources and people beore water and security become synonymous.

P h o t o : S I W I



W O R K S H O P 1

Tools or Benet Sharing

in Transboundary Settings

Convenor: Stockholm International Water InstituteCo-convenors: Bonn International Center or

Conversion (BICC) and The World Bank

The workshop considered the bene it sharing concept in a

transboundary and integrated river basin management and de-

velopment (IWRM&D) context as a tool or promoting co-

operation and development. The benet sharing concept was

validated by the seminar but it was concluded that it needs to

be urther explored and be more concrete to become an eec-tive tool to support the delivery o real benets on the ground.

Water equity and water security are important concepts that

will dier in each river basin.

Cooperative IWRM&D requires a political will which will

depend on the perception o real benets rom cooperation.

Benets rom IWRM&D should be viewed within a broader

development context as exemplied by the regional economic

rameworks in Southern Arica Development Community

(SADC) and the European Union (EU). In both cases the eco-

nomic communities provide a platorm or benet sharing rom

multi-sector water use that goes beyond the water resource

itsel into areas such as energy, agriculture and the envi-

ronment. Benet sharing goes beyond volumetric allocations

o water.

In short, the workshop concluded:• Expanded analytical work is needed in areas related to

good governance, common values and multi-sector policy

harmonisation. Deepened analysis in the use o externali-

ties and optimisation models will provide good tools ordemonstrating benets rom cooperation.

• Institutional rameworks are important. Appropriate orums

or multi-track dialogue, protection o rights, benets shar-

ing and settlements o disputes need continued analysis in

parallel with greater eorts on communication, awareness

and education.

• In the practical area o realising real benets, tools such

as cooperative investment plans, joint easibility studies o

projects, nancing development and implementation needs

greater attention.

P h o t o : M a t s L a n n e r s t a d




W

O R K S H O P 2 Water and Trade: Matching International

Water Availability and Local Needs

Convenor: Stockholm International Water InstituteCo-convenors: Swiss Federal Institute o Aquatic Sci-

ence and Technology, The University o Tokyo and World Water Council

The role played by international trade in water intensive ood

commodities was conirmed as an essential and extremely

eective, i also an under-recognised, strategic solution to

regional water scarcity hotspots. The presentations – and es-

pecially the discussion – ocused on the problems associated with existing patterns o ood trade and o trade reorm ini-

tiatives.

In short, the workshop concluded:• Trade reorm is just one o a number o transitions which

the global system is experiencing. Others include the

changing terms o trade (substantially a South vs. North

issue in terms o power asymmetry); the “super-market”

eect (S vs. N as well); changes in the sourcing o energy;

and socio-economic development (a Southern problem).

The trade reorm transition is extremely slow and incre-

mental and power related. The South versus North power

asymmetry is very signicant.• Individual societies, economies and environments

are seriously impacted by international trade reorm.

Weak and non-d iversied economies in the South do

not have the nancial and social capacity to compensate

their losers.

• The transition o changing how energy is sourced will

impact the cropping patterns and ood crop trade. We are

entering the second water/crop/energy revolution. The rst

– 1930s to 1950s in the North temperate regions – released

water and rain ed land or ood production as draught

animals were replaced by hydrocarbon driven machines.The second, rom 2000–2020, will REVERSE the rst

revolution. Rain ed tracts in BOTH the temperate and

tropical regions will shit to producing crops or bio-energy

production rom producing ood or human consump-

tion. Food commodity prices will probably rise. Such price

changes will have good and bad impacts on non-

diverse and weak economies.

• There are environmental impacts o exporting ood

on the exporting economies – or example those o the

United States and the European Union. The ood import-

ing countries have in recent decades beneted rom the

alleviation o their strategic water shortages with highly

subsidised imported ood. The environmental impacts

o the ood production – that is soil and water degrada-

tion as a consequence o the heavy use o ertilisers and

pesticides – have mainly been borne by temperate high-

income economies. I these high-income ood-exporting

countries give greater consideration to their environments

and the environmental services o water, they might rst

reduce crop production and productivity to protect the

environment. Secondly, they might decide to internalise

the environmental costs, which would result in signicant

increases in the price o commodities such as grain, whichhave been alling or 50 years.

P h o t o s : M

i c h a e l M o o r e ,

S I W I , E U A u d i o v i s u a l L i b r a r y





W O R K S H O P 3

Economic Instruments

Convenor: Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI)

Co-convenors: Third World Centre or Water Manage-ment, International Water Resources Association

(IWRA) and the Water and Sanitation Programme-South Asia (WSP-SA)

Encouragement o service providers and water users to de-velop water supply and manage consumption in an eective

way is the main motivation o applying economic instruments

(charges, subsidies, taxes, quotas, ownership rights, water use

rights and trading options). Subsidies are t he most widely

used economic instrument in the water sector. Whereas sub-

sidies have brought various social benets, side eects such as

inecient water use, depletion o the resource and the envi-

ronment have become major concerns. The lowering o sub-

sidies and adoption o other types o economic instruments

may clariy responsibilities, increase water use eciency and

allow increased cost recovery or the operation and mainte-

nance o household water supply, irrigation and other related

inrastructure.

The bottlenecks are typical ly related to institutional and po-

litical issues such as regulation, monitoring, social and political

acceptance, community involvement, etc. Potential eciency

gains or applying economic instruments are conditional on

correct pricing and robust institutional control and concern o

negative redistributional eects or weak segments in society.

Agriculture is the world’s largest water user. The water use e-

ciency in irrigated agriculture remains low globally; thereore, the

development o economic and nancial incentives to increase on-

arm water use eciency is crucial. Unortunately, the implemen-tation o economic instruments is more challenging in agriculture

than in water supply or in industry. Direct water pricing has been

institutionally, politically and technically cumbersome. Approaches

such as water markets, quantitative quotas or rights or using water

tend to be more acceptable and ecient in many cases.

An important but largely neglected distinction in the eco-

nomic instruments discourse is between the modern economic

sector and the traditional societies which include subsistencearmers, shermen/women, and marginalised people (landless

and urban slum dwellers). Introducing nancial and economic

instruments to the basic unctions o traditional livelihoods

which dominantly consider water as a common resource is a

delicate process and should be done with the simultaneous

introduction o nancial systems such as micro-nancing or

insurance systems.

The emergence o new types o economic instruments is

closely linked to the development o a number o academic

tools and approaches or analysis o eects o economic poli-

cies, such as multi-stakeholder cost-benet analysis, hydro-eco-

nomic models and more.

The eld o economic instruments is in rapid evolution and

it is expected to undergo plenty o progress with trials, errors

and successes in coming years.

In short, the workshop concluded:• Encouragement to increase eciency is the core o

applying economic instruments in water management.

• Social challenges deserve special concern, particularly

in the case o traditional and poverty-driven livelihoods.

• Implementation o economic instruments is institutionally

and politically highly demanding—in many casesexcessively.

Photos:MichaelMoore,SIWI,

Aquapol,SIWI



W

O R K S H O P 4 Benets and Responsibilities o Decentralised

and Centralised Approaches or Management o

Water and Wastewater

Convenor: Stockholm International Water InstituteCo-convenors: International Water Association and

Water and Sanitation Programme

There are diculties in dening decentralisation. Devolving

responsibility rom national to local government may not result

in greater transparency, community involvement or ownership.

Examples presented at the workshop included devolved pow-

ers on both hydrological and administrative boundaries, with

varying degrees o community participation.Finance and aordability can be a driver or, and a con-

straint on, decentralisation. In developing countries, as dem-

onstrated by the example o Orangi Town in Karachi, the per

capita cost o a conventional approach to the provision o water

supply networks and sewerage was too high or the economi-

cally poor community. In the absence o city leadership and a

ocused subsidy, the solution was or the people to carry out

construction and maintenance themselves. In examples pre-

sented rom rural areas, the cost o wells and their maintenance

was aordable by the community, and decentralisation gave

the community empowerment and ownership to achieve sus-tainable water services. However in urban areas, even in the

Orangi case, it is necessary to have less decentralised manage-

ment o water resources. So this is a dilemma, how to achieve

the benets o decentralised delivery and management whilst

achieving Integrated Water Resources Management.

One critical point in a South Arican example was the lack

o suitably trained sta to assume management and technical

responsibilities. The need or competent sta is o absolute im-

portance or successul local management and realisation o

planned solutions. The cost o capacity building is oten under-

estimated.

Overall, the discussion ocused on our dierent perspectives

on decentralisation. The optimists see success where centralisa-tion has ailed, with involvement o local stakeholders resulting

in aordable and sustainable decentralised systems. The more

cautious see problems lack o integration, high cost o stakehold-

er involvement, and the need or operational units o a viable size

or competent management and economies o scale.

In short, the workshop concluded:• There is a trend towards decentralisation, with examples o

good progress worldwide.

• A major obstacle to success in decentralisation is when

nancial aspects have not been included.• Successul decentralisation requires transparency and

accountability, providing benets o ownership, empower-

ment, integration and aordability.






W O R K S H O P 5

Decision Support Systems and IWRM

Convenor: Stockholm International Water Institute

Co-convenors: Global Water Partnership andStakeholder Forum or a Sustainable Future

Development and implementation o Integrated Water Resources

Management (IWRM) in practice is an eective way to achieve

access to water, abate pollution and saeguard good ecological bal-

ance. Underling IWRM is the need or good practical tools and

Decision Support Systems (DSS). Many DSS have been developed

around the world, and the workshop looked at some examples.

In the areas o governance and the role o policy, regulations

and the role o local institutions, the workshop concluded that

enorcement o legislation at all governmental levels is crucial

in using DSS to support the implementation o IWRM. But

there must also be political will to ensure eective measures

and adequate nancial support.

For stakeholders and societal negotiation processes, it was

concluded that water issues can not only be managed eectively by water proessionals alone. It is critical that DSS be based on

stakeholder involvement supported by capacity building, princi-

ples o inormation transparency, and the collection o relevant

and measurable data on a harmonised basis i inormed decisions

are to be made. DSS must be supported by data and inormation

rom both the hydrological and the socio-economic aspects.

In short, the workshop concluded:

• To make it work in practice, DSS should be made user

riendly or national, regional and local policymakers as

well as or all stakeholders. Partnership between stakehold-

ers and experts (ecological, economic, etc.) is essential.

• DSS should result in an action plan speciying the goals to

be reached as well as terms and schedules o implementing.

Understandable indicators should be in place to ollow the

implementation.

• During the elaboration it is o utmost importance to get

stakeholder and public participation at all levels – local,subnational, national and regional.

P h o t o : W S S C C



W

O R K S H O P 6 Changing Diets and Their Implications

or Water, Land and Livelihoods

Convenor: Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI)Co-convenors: International Water Management

Institute (IWMI) , International Livestock ResearchInstitute (ILRI) and Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)

Food production is the major human appropriation o resh-

water. Population size, calorie level per person, diet composi-

tion and choice o production system decide the magnitude.

The crucial challenge is to eed today’s 850 million under-

nourished and the expected population increase o 3 billion.Estimates o consumptive water use required to produce ani-

mal products are generally much higher than or vegetables

and grains. The dietary trend towards consuming more animal

products (meat, sh, milk, eggs) in many countries will thus in-

crease the amount o water resources required to produce ood

or each person. Large crop/ood losses exist along the chain

rom production to actual ood intake, and ood supply is ac-

cordingly not the same as nutritional requirements. The global

upward trend o obesity shows that agricultural production

also has to satisy consumption patterns with a higher intake

than necessary.Even though water use or animal calorie production is a key

or understanding water resource use in agriculture, no com-

mon methodology exists or calculating livestock water pro-

ductivity. Livestock in Sub-Saharan Arica (SSA) eed partly

on crop residues and crop by-products, and thus benet o a

water use oten a lready accounted or in grain production. On

the other hand, mounting pig and poultry production is main-

ly produced in large-scale eed grain systems requiring large

amounts o water.

In short, the workshop concluded:• Untapped potential in livestock water productivity can

give poor armers in SSA multiple benets, as ood, cash

income, manure and animal power, and play a role in

eeding the growing urban areas, while easing stress on

water resources.

• Global trade eectively acilitates intensive meat and aqua-

culture production, but impacts on ecosystems, livelihoods

and water resources in basins and countries exporting eed

and other inputs are oten unseen and unaccounted.

• Participants agreed that it is urgent to advance our un-

derstanding o water resource implications o uture diet

requirements to be able to give guidance or investmentsor water use in agriculture.

P h o t o : S I W I




W O R K S H O P 7

Sharing the Benets o Ecosystem Services and

the Costs o Ecosystem Degradation

Convenor: Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI)Co-convenors: CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and

Food (CPWF) and Ramsar Convention on Wetlands

Human populations depend on a wide range o ecosystem serv-

ices (supporting, provisioning, regulating and cultural, ollow-

ing the classication o the Millennium Assessment) or their

wel l-being. However, human act ivit ies a ect the global lie

support system in ways that oten compromise the continued

provision o these services. Furthermore, it is increasingly clearthat society’s poor oten bear the highest costs o ecosystem

degradation. There is an urgent need thus to identiy important

services provided by dierent ecosystems and to provide valu-

ation or these.

Methods or economic valuation o ecosystem services al-

ready exist, and several workshop presentations emphasised the

need to start applying them, even i inormation is incomplete.

Three presentations oered mutually compatible stepwise prac-

tical processes that participants considered widely applicable.

To map and evaluate ecosystem services on a broader scale, it

is also crucial to ocus on the development o simple and rapidresearch techniques. The importance o thinking o valuation

in a broad sense, as revealing preerences, rather than strictly

in economic terms was highlighted, but how to include other

aspects o value is still a problematic issue.

Compensation to upstream inhabitants or land management

that promotes maintenance and enhancement o downstream

ecosystem services is one way orward. It is clear, however, that

ocus on long-term and short-term incentives or compensation is

needed. Also, compensation should be used more proactively and

should not only be used or restoration o degraded ecosystems

but also or conservation o existing ones. The nature o compen-

sation can be quite varied, or example, through payments, sot

credits, certication, etc. Furthermore, the potential or using

compensation or ecosystem services as a platorm or negotiat-

ing a range o human and environmental rights (e.g. to water) is

considerable. The issue o distribution o compensation benetsand the issue o recognising and evaluating otherwise unrecog-

nised services is highly challenging.

Finally, crucial to mapping and evaluation, as well as to de-

veloping and strengthening processes or negotiating and sharing

benets o ecosystem services is stakeholder participation, and

iterative approaches are oten necessary or successul outcomes.

In short, the workshop concluded:• Valuation o ecosystem services should be employed more

requently in a proactive way as well as being used in a

problem solving capacity, and methodologies are availableor a wide range o ecosystem services.

• Valuation o ecosystem services can help resolve conficts

between e.g. carbon sequestration and water use.

• Part o the valuation process must include communication

o results (in a participatory way) to stakeholders with ap-

propriate eedback.


Photos:MatsLannerstad



W

O R K S H O P 8

Large lakes, as illustrated by the very geography o economic

activities typical or lake regions, are strategic to regional de-

velopment. They are integral to a variety o dynamic processes

where water resource and water-related risk actors interact with

other components in societal development. Lakes, or instance,

constrain the expansion o physical inrastructure while serving

urban planning with valuable coastal zones. Globally, pressure

on lake resources and surrounding lands can be seen. This aects

the water quality o the lakes and thereby also the socio-econom-

ic conditions and environmental status o the region. Visionary planning is needed to integrate experience and knowledge into

collaborative and sustainable lake management.

In Stockholm, the workshop addressed a wide array o case

studies and gave participants a sense o the urgency or im-

plementing Integrated Lake Basin Management (ILBM). The

cases addressed sustainable resource and risk management o

lake basins; integrated, multi-objective water regulation sys-

tems; and the particular case o transboundary lakes, such as

Lake Victoria.

Lake Victoria has experienced intensied population pres-

sures – swelling rom 9 million to 47 million inhabitants over

the last 40 years – and the eects on the lake are apparent.

Through a partnership between the Union o Baltic Cities and

the Lake Victoria Regional Local Authorities Co-operation,

there has been a fow o innovative solutions going both ways.

In short, the workshop concluded:• Integrated Lake Basin Management (ILBM) is more than

integrated water resources management; it requires an eco-system/landscape approach and it integrates the environmen-

tal socio-economic and cultural issues o the entire Basin.

• Lake partnerships that include local governments are

essential pillars o ILBM.

• Responsible lake governance and stakeholder participation

is an essential requirement or lake management.

Large Lakes as Drivers or Regional DevelopmentConvenor: Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI)

Co-Convenors: East Arican Community (EAC), International Lake Environment Committee (ILEC) and The International Joint Commission (IJC)


P h o t o : S t e p h a n i e B l e n c k n e r , S I W

I




W O R K S H O P 9

Sae Water Storage andRegulation During Floods and Droughts

Convenor: Stockholm International Water InstituteCo-Convenors: International Association o Hydraulic

Engineering and Research, International Associationo Hydrological Sciences, International Hydropower

Association, International Water Resources Association

and Third World Centre or Water Management

The workshop ocused on the importance o inrastructure to

ensure water security; the need or good planning to decide

on appropriate structural and non-structural options; and the

presence and implementation o river basin management plans

in the context o multiple water uses. Furthermore, the need or

transparent and balanced regulations as well as the appropri-

ateness o storage inrastructure was highlighted. A crosscut-

ting theme ocused on the signicance o good communication

processes or data retrieval as well as or the promotion o un-

derstanding across disciplines and between sectoral interests.

Rational water management was identied as key issue or

improvement. It was noted that a strong governmental inter-

est and will is needed to overcome what oten becomes highly

ideological discussion caused by poor policy decisions, and also

to transparently guide the political process in a most sensitive

context or development. Multi-dimensional and harmonised

cooperation or ecient management o water resources was

identied as one essential solution to signicantly reduce the

impacts o food and droughts.

Inormation was considered crucial or strategic planning

and improved management. Oten, reliable data and precise in-

ormation on assessment o resources and hazards are missing.Even when they exist, access to that inormation is oten re-

stricted because o their sensitive and strategic context. Further-

more, the dierent perspectives o data analyses, the multitude

o its interpretations and underlying parameters hinder eec-

tive planning. The lack o rea l time inormation and extensive

dissemination data were identied as urther bottlenecks or

proper storage and regulation.The need or structured communication exchange o experi-

ence was highlighted. Stakeholder dialogues are one option to

improve communication within a country as well as between

countries or specic water bodies. Inormation technology-

based systems could be helpul processed careully to ensure

generation o knowledge. Knowledge and experience transer

are likely to be more eective at regional or national levels since

countries in a region oten have similar concerns and condi-

tions. Such meetings may be accompanied by a balanced ex-

change between developing and developed regions. It was high-

lighted that sharing should not mean copying. Based on this

conclusion, it was agreed that sharing experiences will create

high benets and prevent reinvention o the wheel.

In short, the workshop concluded:• Assessment o resources and hazards are necessary

to provide reliable data and inormation as a basis or

strategic planning.

• Multi-dimensional and harmonised cooperation or

ecient management o water resources is required to

reduce impacts o foods and droughts.

• A high need o eective experience sharing exists

to careully process inormation, providing links tostakeholders in an appropriate manner.

P h o t o s : S I W I , M i c h a e l M o o r e ,

S I W I



W O

R K S H O P 1 0 Extreme Events and Sustainable Water

and Sanitation Services

Convenor: Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI)Co-convenors: International Water Association (IWA),

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and WaterEnvironment Federation (WEF)

The aim o the workshop was to identiy what measures are re-

quired, and can be implemented, to ensure that the adverse e-

ects o extreme events are minimised or mitigated. What kind

o disaster plans are easible and can be put in place? How can

satisactory services be resumed, especially during search, res-cue and rehabilitation work? With numerous hazards that have

occurred recently, cases illustrated the ailures that should be

avoided in uture and provided successul examples that should

be ollowed.

The workshop beneted rom papers and experience drawn

rom dierent geographic locations and rom a diverse range o

extreme events (cyclones, foods, Tsunami, sea surge). The main

highlights rom the workshop were summarised as ollows.

Regarding the requency and magnitude o extreme events,

the common perception has tended towards the notion o an

increase in the requency and amplitude o extreme events; yet

the evidence to support this is mixed. Also, requency and mag-

nitude is linked to human intervention or presence, through

urbanisation processes or canalization o rivers. Finally, poor,

vulnerable communities living on marginal land are dispropor-

tionately impacted by extreme events.

In addressing risk management strategies, workshop partici-

pants noted that previous approaches linked risk managementto levels o economic and nancial damage. More recently, a

shit rom one dimensional to multi-dimensional approaches is

occuring. Integrated risk management now considers strategies

that emphasise risk assessment, increasing resilience, reduction

o potential losses and raising preparedness. Also, risk manage-

ment strategies no longer ocus exclusively on structural issues,

but consider non-structural approaches such as resettling vul-

nerable populations, or buying land to establish environmental

“buer” zones.

For extreme event recovery and rehabilitation, experience

rom the case studies pointed towards some consensus issues.First, emergency compacts, protocols and plans were ound to

be inadequate without opportunity to refect and revise on the

basis o experience gained during extreme events. Also, strong

management leadership and committed personnel were ound

to be key variables in recovery o critical utility inrastructure.

Expertise rom outside the aected location was more readily

accepted when there was a shared background, trust or com-

mon understanding o practice rom volunteers to those proes-

sional working in the aected location. Finally, during emer-

gency responses, the need or eective planning, coordination

o stakeholders and cultural sensitivity in basic service provi-

sion (e.g., emale hygiene issues) was highlighted.

In short, the workshop concluded:• Forecasting is essential – it helps to raise preparedness

and mitigate impacts. The challenge is to translate

orecasts into easible public awareness campaigns.

• Multi-dimensional concepts/approaches are also

needed and should consider structural and non-

structural issues, entire basins, and the whole cycle

o risk management.

• Utilities require improved training, capacity development and

best practice awareness raising on emergency preparedness.

00 6 WO R LD W AT ER W E EK S Y NT H ES IS

P h o t o s : M a t s K u l l b e r g ,

M a t s L a

n n e r s t a d



High-Level Panel on Benet Sharing

on Transboundary Waters

Moderator: Mr. Nik Gowing, BBC World

Panel Members:

• Dr. Marwa Daoudy, Graduate Institute or International

Studies, Université de Genève, Switzerland

• Mr. Vahid Alavian, Senior Water Advisor, Arica Region,

The World Bank

• H.E. LB Hendricks, Minister o Water Aairs and Forestry,

Department o Water Aairs and Forestry, South Arica

• Dr. Andras. Szollosi-Nagy, Deputy Assistant Director Gen-

eral, Director o the Division o Water Sciences, UNESCO• Mr. Syed Mohammad Zobaer, Secretary, Ministry o Water

Resources, Bangladesh

The world’s 263 international river basins cover almost hal o

the surace o the earth. Some 145 countries are classied as

riparians to these transboundary basins, and about 45% o the

world’s population live in internationally shared river basins.

Over 50% o the available surace water is located in trans-

boundary basins. Consequently, the arrangements to deal with

transboundary basins are a key development imperative. The

purpose o the high-level panel was to shed light on whetherbenet sharing as a concept is useul as a tool or increasing co-

operation and development in shared river basins. In particular

the practical aspects o benet sharing were analysed, drawing

predominantly on cases rom Southern Arica, the Jordan River

and the Ganges-Brahamaputra River.

Proponents o the approach argued that a package o broader

benets (such as increased environmental protection, deepened

regional integration, increased trade, etc.) could be reaped rom

the use o the water resources in the basin and that those can

contribute to peace building and stability – which in turn are

necessary actors or sustainable development and poverty re-

duction in a region. Others argued that the concept o benet

sharing is too “sot” at this stage. First, they questioned why it

would be easier to share the benets stemming rom a complex

ramework rather than sharing the water resource itsel. Sec-

ond, why would states agree on sharing benets that are not

ully quantied? Usually, states jealously guard their dierent

identied “rights,” be it to water or something else.

In the debate it was highlighted that in many basins secu-

rity issues dominate the discussions and leave little room or

discussions on benet sharing. However, in river basins where

the states enjoy some degree o good relations, benets are

more easily traded, and in this case reerence was made to theLesotho Highlands Project in Southern Arica.

In short, the high-level panel concluded:• Benet sharing approaches shall not be considered a

panacea in river basin. Each basin is unique.

• In river basins dominated by security concerns the

prospects or benet sharing is limited.

• There is need or more systematic on-the-ground

understanding o how benet sharing can be promoted.

P A N E L D E B

A T E


P h o t o

: S I W I



24 2006 WORLD WATER WEEK SYNTHES IS

Coping with Water Scarcity Convenor: UN-Water

With the continuous increase in the world’s populat ion, new

dietary habits and economic development, the pressure on wa-

ter resources is steadily growing. Water scarcity af fects all social

and economic sectors and threatens the natural resources base.

Addressing water scarcity calls for an approach ensuring the co-

ordinated development and management of water and related

resources in order to maximise economic and social welfare in

an equitable manner, without compromising the sustainability

of vital ecosystems. This includes increasing the productivity

of water use in all sectors of the economy, reversing the trend

of rivers and aquifer degradation, ensuring equitable access to

water, in particular to the most vulnerable people, and develop-

ing conflict resolution mechanisms.

UN-Water was created in 2003 with the mandate to increase

coherence, consistency and effectiveness of the actions of the

24 UN agencies operating in the field of water. The UN-Dec-

ade “Water for Life” 2005–2015, the Millennium Development

Goals and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation provide the

overall framework for UN-Water action. Since its creation, UN-Wa-

ter has attracted increasing attention among donors and partners.

UN–Water has identified Coping with Water Scarcity as

part of the strategic issues and priorities requiring joint action

and as the theme of the 2007 World Water Day (22 March).

The seminar was an opportunity to introduce UN-Water’s the-

matic initiative on water scarcity, to discuss the strategic role

of UN-Water and to investigate ways to enhance its effective-

ness and impact. Discussions highlighted the fact that actions

are needed at all levels (local, national and transboundary) and

the necessity for countries to make effective trade-offs between

water management options. Current effor ts by UN Agencies

to coordinate their support to countries through UN-Water

were acknowledged and encouraged. In particular, participants

stressed the role of UN-Water as a vehicle for communication

on water-related challenges and achievements.

P h o t o :

S I W I

S E M I N A R S



National IWRM Planning Processes

– Examples rom the Ground

Convenors: Global Water Partnership (GWP) and Stock-

holm International Water Institute (SIWI)

Traditionally, governments and citizens are used to working in

sectoral and hierarchical systems. Integrated Water Resources

Management (IWRM) strategy and plan preparation may come

as something new since the process encompasses broad stake-

holder participation and integration. Moreover, water people tra-

ditionally talk to water people, thus limiting the infuence sus-

tainable water management can have in a broader development

context. For the IWRM plan to be relevant and translated into

actions, it needs to be embedded in the national development

strategies and make the case o how water can contribute to im-

prove the living conditions o the citizens.This seminar provided the ramework or three countries

(Indonesia, Zambia and Kazakhstan) to share their approach,

experiences and lessons learned in planning or IWRM. Some

common elements were identied during the country presenta-

tions: inconsistencies between national and provincial/district

regulations; lack o policy harmonisation (agriculture, sanita-

tion, hydropower) weak law enorcement, weak stakeholder

participation and sectoral interests.

GWP adds value to the planning process by bringing to-

gether actors with dierent interests and view points – includ-

ing governments – and providing a platorm or discussion thathas been proven useul to reach agreements and compromises.

GWP assists and aids governments in preparing the IWRM

plan, upon government request.

The presentation rom Zambia highlighted that the respon-

sibility or the planning process inevitably rests with the Min-istry o Finance and National Planning. The IWRM/Water

Eciency (WE) plan gives great signicance to the National

Development Programme, whose ocus is on pro-poor oriented

sectors. The planning process has taken into account the devel-

opment options within the water sector and other scenarios or

development and relations between other sectors that may have

an impact on the water resources. Likewise, the consequences

o water management decisions in other economic sectors such

as tourism, industry, agriculture and energy are an integral part

o the analyses made during the planning process.

In short, the seminar concluded:• For the IWRM plan to be relevant and translated

into actions, it needs to be embedded in the national

development strategies.

• Common elements identied during the country

presentations: inconsistencies between national and

provincial/district regulations; lack o policy harmonisation

(agriculture, sanitation, hydropower) weak law

enorcement, weak stakeholder participation and

sectoral interests.

• In Zambia the IWR M planning process has already taken

into account the development options within the watersector and other scenarios or development and relations

between other sectors that may have an impact on the

water resources, and also the other way around.

P h o t o : S I W I

S E M I N A R S

5 0 06 W OR LD W AT ER W EE K SY NT HE SI S



S E M I N A R S

0 06 W OR LD WAT ER W EEK S YN TH ESI S 6

Environmental Conficts and the Role o Media

Convenors: International Federation o Environmental Journalists ( IFEJ) and Swedish Association or Environ-

mental Journalists (MÖF) with support rom the Swed-

ish Water House (SWH) Is the Journalist an objective observer or an agent o change? Some

60 practicing journalists, together with 30 representatives rom poli-

tics, science, business and civil society, engaged in a lively discussion

on the subject in Stockholm. In developed countries, it was said, the

ormer is truer; elsewhere, the latter was not uncommon. Necessity

and working conditions are the determinants.

Presentations by journalists rom Nigeria, the Philippines, In-

dia and Ghana highlighted the dierent roles that members o the

media actually have during environmental conficts such as orced

migration due to dam-building or poisoning o local populations

through air and water pollution discharges. Whether working as a ree-lance investigative journalist, or being employed by a country’s

largest television station, the speakers ound it oten hard to con-

tain their sadness in the ace o the human suering they covered,

their disbelie when conronted by bureaucratic backpedaling or

their anger in the light o environmental and social injustices. How

much or little they involved themselves in the issue they covered

was very much a decision based on personal saety and individual

journalistic ethics.

Particularly or journalists in developing countries, support

or environmental reporting does not come on a silver platter; itcan, in act, be deadly: some 52 journalists have been murdered

in the Philippines since 1986 alone.

In short, the seminar concluded:• Environmental issues are ”hard to sell.” Public media today seems

to care more about beauty contests, sex and terrorism in order to sell

more copies. The modern media culture is a problem, or environ-

mental journalism and or journalism in general.

• Time limitation also limits the understanding o compli-

cated connections like the relationship between mining

activities o multinational companies and the increase o

malaria in Ghana, or example.• Scientic culture diers a lot rom media culture. And

since environmental issues are very complex and thereore

complicated to communicate, environmental issues have

diculties to reach the public at large. In scientic culture

there are very seldom any nal and denitive answers, but

that is exactly what media wants.

Environmental Flows:

Creating Benets or Ecosystems and People?An Open Discussion to Explore the Development o a Global Environmental Flows Network o Localand National Practitioners and Experts

Convenors: Stockholm International Water Institute

(SIWI), The World Conservation Union (IUCN),International Water Management Institute (IWMI) ,

Delt Hydraulics, DHI Water and Environment,The Nature Conservancy, Centre or Ecology and

Hydrology and the Swedish Water House

Environmental fows reer to water provided within a river, wet-

land or coastal zone to maintain ecosystems and the benets

they provide or people. The aim o the Environmental Flows

Network seminar was to share ideas on how a network can

address key concepts surrounding environmental fows. Dis-

cussion groups rst examined the demand or such a network

as well as the urgency needed to communicate environmental

fows beyond the technical community. The second part o the

discussion ocused on tangible deliverables that the network

could provide, as well as how to disseminate inormation and

who should be involved in the network.

Discussions revealed that there is a demand or a central

reerence point where knowledge on environmental fows canbe shared and accessed. The network can act as such a point

where experts, pract itioners, policy makers, civil societ y and

other interested parties could nd reliable and relevant inor-

mation on environmental fows. The network can be a support

tool to those responsible or watershed management and water

allocation. Furthermore, the network can promote the value o

ecosystem benets rom environmental fows.

The Environmental Flows Network will evolve with t he

changing needs and demands o users. It will integrate inor-

mation on education, case studies, economic valuation, policy

and legislation, community participation and technical advice.

Members o the network will be able to link with organisations

and individuals with similar interests.

In short, the seminar concluded:• The Environmental Flows Network will start as the

central reerence point and clearinghouse o inormation

on environmental fows.

• A website will be developed or the network as soon as possible.

• The aim is to have an ocial launch o the Environmental

Flows Network at the International Environmental FlowsConerence in Brisbane, September 2007.




S E M I N A R S The Stockholm Water Prize Laureates Seminar:

Challenges and Opportunities within the Water Sector

Convenor: Stockholm Water Foundation

In the Laureates Seminar, six earlier Stockholm Water Prize Lau-reates presented their views on the current trends and possibilities

or achievements and development. The rate o change in the last

20 years has been enormous and will continue to accelerate. This

change is characterised by three maniestations. First, natural hab-

itats and thus biodiversity are disappearing globally at an alarm-

ing rate. Second, climate change has set in and is now preventing

the rejuvenation o the habitats destroyed by humans and directly

causing urther rapid habit changes. Third, humans are increas-

ingly relying on technological xes or all their problems, rom

climate change to human spiritual, mental and physical health.

The discussion among the participants underlined that solv-

ing large-scale water resource problems requires more than justengineering and technological solutions; it requires inter- and

trans-disciplinary eorts. With the rapid change already in

motion, solutions require concerted action and participatory

approaches o engineers, scientists, end-users, investors, jour-

nalists and regu lators. The problems are very complex and

thereore management based on extensive knowledge about

ecosystems and ecological balances is required or a sustainable

water use. We can learn a lot rom ecosystems, which are to a

high extent sustainable, fexible and adaptable.

Access to sae water and decent sanitation is a basic human

right, but customers must understand that water services are not

ree. I consumers are not willing to pay, investors remain reluc-tant. Wastewater systems have been passively constructed and re-

sult in terrible wastewater cocktails during fooding. Much strong-

er demands must be placed on the wastewater we want to handle,

and wastewater must be treated to the level needed or its potential

urther use. Active wastewater construction can turn the tide.

In developing countries, we must listen to local voices and

develop local capacity. Participation, partnership and align-

ment around government-owned plans will show the way to

sustainable outcomes. Bottom-up planning via empowered

citizens and a women-led process are actors calling or good

governance. Governments should ensure water and sanitation

or all via country owned and monitored plans and local gov-ernments provide accessible and aordable solutions.

In short, the seminar concluded:• We should learn rom the behaviour o ecosystems.

• The solution to the water and sanitation problems is not

more technology. We have the knowledge needed.

• Communication should be developed to improve the decision

makers’ understanding o water and environmental problems.

Challenges in Governance o WaterConvenors: Global Water Partnership (GWP)–Eastern

Arica and GWP–Western Arica

Since 2005, GWP-Eastern Arica has worked with government,

civil society and donors to identiy constraints to water man-

agement caused by prevailing governance conditions, and de-

veloped a scorecard used in assessing key issues on water man-

agement or both eastern and western Arica.

With unding rom the EU Water Initiative, GWP-Eastern

Arica identied opportunities in Uganda, Tanzania and Ken-

ya to enhance sustainable, economically ecient and equitable

access in development and conservation projects attuned to the

local context. Perhaps more critically, specic obstacles which

negate impacts o local level decision-making were identied.

The seminar concurred that coalitions at international, re-

gional and country levels help mitigate destruction o sensitive

catchments and are a precondition to social and economic de-

velopment in pursuit o the Millennium Development Goals.

Local empowerment oten overcomes bureaucratic stumbling

blocks and catalyses regulatory reorms. The case study rom Su-dan’s Gash Barka demonstrated how centuries-old customs that

discriminate against women can be overcome by providing ac-

cess to land and entitling individuals or xed periods o time.

The Nile Basin Initiative’s evolution rom a simple water quantity

monitoring activity to present attempts towards a benet-sharing

ramework clearly demonstrated that transboundary cooperation

needs long-term teamwork with small, mutually benecial gains

building trust in handling issues where the stakes are higher.

In short, the seminar concluded:• Democratisation and decentralisation support development

more responsive to people’s needs on the ground.

• Laws and regulations are oten useless in conrontations be-

tween dierent water users that need immediate resolution;

mediation and arbitration by respected intermediaries,

preerably with some measure o authority, provide better

outcomes than litigation.

• Communication is crucial to creating public awareness

and political support. Better communication modes and

dissemination channels are needed, and water practition-

ers must partner with (and educate) journalists to enhancesociety’s capacity to cope with adverse climate eects.




S E M I N A R S

Drought, Risk and Management

or Agricultural Water Use

Convenor: The Comprehensive Assessment o Water

Management in Agriculture (CA) and the CGIAR Chal-lenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF)

Water resource management problems are typically characterised

by a level o uncertainty regarding water availability, infows and

demand. This is more important with changing climate and demo-

graphics. Inaccurate assessment o these variables could invalidate

existing water resource development and management plans. Ac-

cess to reshwater and the protection against extreme events such

as foods and droughts are crucial or sustainable development.

For this purpose, there is a need to build an improved knowledge

base, and shared opinions, and increased awareness and involve-

ment o policy makers, civil society and the public in recognising

that sustainable development, including poverty reduction and en-

vironmental protection, cannot be undertaken successully without

managing these risks in irrigated and rain ed agriculture.

The seminar’s broad objective was to discuss dierent ap-

proaches or the analysis o risk and uncertainty in the manage-

ment o water resources in irrigated and rain ed agriculture. The

deliberations ocused on: (1) role o risk and uncertainty in water

allocation and agricultural water management; (2) development o

methodology/models or risk analysis; (3) decision making under

risk and uncertainty and dynamic decision making under alterna-

tive systems o water entitlements; and (4) strategies or mitigating risk, including drought insurance, and water marketing.

In short, the seminar concluded:

• Risk and uncertainty in agricultural water management arerelated to both rain ed and irrigated agriculture. While in

rain ed agriculture, reductions in rainall, such as drought,

and changes in the timing and requency o precipitation

are important, irrigated agriculture can contribute to risks

in the area o ood saety and irrigation structures them-

selves can increase the risk o water availability or other

users and uses and can thus magniy droughts and fow

variability, particularly at the basin level.

• There are many types o modelling tools that can assist deci-

sion makers to address risk and uncertainty in agricultural

water management. Hydrological models deal with the sup-

ply side, optimisation models with allocation, and crop water

requirement and demand orecast models ocus on the water

demand side. Discussants agree that advances in modelling

tools enhance the possibility to manage water-related risks in

agriculture, and thus improve risk resilience.

• There are many instruments that can be applied to mitigate

risks. They include payments or environmental services,

warehouse receipts and weather insurance. However, their

successul implementation requires transparency, prot-

ability or all parties involved, and suitable institutions to

manage these instruments.

P h o t o : S I W I




S E M I N A R S Capturing the Big Picture o Gender in Water Power

Relations in Policy and Practise:

How to Utilise Existing Knowledge?

Convenors: Gender and Water Alliance (GWA), Stock-holm International Water Institute (SIWI) and SwedishInternational Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)

Co-convenors: United Nations – Department o Economic and Social Aairs (UNDESA) and the UN

Task Force or Gender and Water – Division or theAdvancement o Women

Despite the growing body o evidence o the benets o main-

streaming gender as well as the increasing number o international

commitments, improvements are not happening ast enough on

the ground and on a large scale. What is the reason or this?

At the international level there is a clear mandate to ensurea gender perspective and promote women’s equitable participa-

tion in development o water policies and programmes. The

Commission Report or the World Water Vision stated the

“women’s voices must be heard in all water-related schemes.” It

goes on to state that the Dublin Conerence recognised the im-

portance o positive policies to address women’s specic needs

and empower them to participate at all levels in water resources

programmes. The General A ssembly resolution proclaiming

2005–15 the International Water or Lie Decade calls on gov-

ernments to ensure the ull involvement and participation o women in water-related development eorts. It is time to accept

and systematically implement that principle.

What is needed are clearly measurable perormance indica-

tors with respect to gender sensitivity o water projects. Only

then governments, organisations and companies can be held

accountable or (not) delivering on gender issues . For gender-

mainstreaming to be eective we have to think out o the box,

we have to look at other actors o inequa lity and take other

sectors than the water sector into account.


• Use perormance indicators.• Hold governments, organisations and institutions

accountable or gender mainstreaming.

• Use gender sensitive budgeting.

• Think out o the box.

• Educate and involve the youth.

• Mentor young women water proessionals to enable them

to work in the water sector.

• Make partnership eective in achieving the goal o gender

mainstreaming.

The IWRM 2005 Target– Indicators o Implementation

Convenors: UNEP Collaborating Centre on Water and

Environment in cooperation with the Ministry o For-eign Aairs, Danida, Denmark

A survey in 2005 o 95 countries undertaken by the Global Water

Partnership (GWP) showed that Integrated Water Resources Man-

agement (IWRM) plans are in place or under preparation in many

countries. While the IWRM planning process is important, it is the

actual implementation o the plans that counts: new policies and

laws, reorming the institutions at the central and decentralised level,

building the human capacities and taking action at the local level. In

2008 all countries will be requested by the United Nations to report

on IWRM planning as well as implementation at the 16th session o

the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-16).

The meeting presented a monitoring hierarchy to monitor

the progress on reorms on i) policies and legislation ii) institu-

tional reorms iii) impacts on the ground, including links to the

Millennium Development Goals and iv) sustainability o thereorm process. Examples rom West Arica, Central Asia and

monitoring o institutional reorm processes in 23 countries

illustrated the use o this monitoring approach and how the

results have supported decision making. To support the devel-

opment o the report on IWRM planning and implementation

to CSD-16, UN-Water will develop a limited number o indica-

tors and will engage key players on IWRM in this process.

The discussion highlighted the need to monitor progress on

water management reorms and plans at the globa l, national

and local level and that each level needed its own monitoring

and indicators or its specic purpose. At the global level some

standardisation o indicators is needed, while the national and

local level may develop indicators according to specic needs.

In short, the seminar concluded:• At the global level, simple and reliable indicators should

be the aim.

• Build on the progress and experiences already gained and

the work initiated by UN-Water to develop the rst set o IWRM indicators to be used to report to CSD-16 in 2008.



S E M I N A R S

0 06 WORLDWATERWEEKSYNTHESIS 30

Closing the Sanitation Loop:Innovative Approaches and Operational Strategies or aSystems Approach to Sustainable Sanitation

Convenors: Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) ,

Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI),Linköping University and Stockholm Water Company

The seminar addressed management, policy and institutional

dimensions o the sanitation, ood and water nexus.

Sanitation is about how ood and consumer goods are used

and disposed o in sae and resource-saving ways. Closing the

sanitation loop means that nutrients, water and other matter

are re-circulated to new products. Now when every second

person lives in urban areas, we need to plan or recirculation.

A strategy to promote source-separation o excreta and other

risk products will acilitate treatment and reuse. Households

play a crucial role and user satisaction is required. The seminarstressed that a single technical solution is not appropriate or all

circumstances. For example, in food-prone, high groundwa-

ter table, rocky and sharply undulating areas, sewerage and pit

latrines are inappropriate, calling or other solutions. Further-

more, sanitation problems cannot be solved by one sector only,

but require close coordination o several, including agriculture,

health, water and town planning.

Today, large areas on the urban ringes are irrigated with

sewage water, and the production helps lots o poor armers

out o poverty since the economic return rom wastewater use

in horticulture is one USD per cubic meter compared to a centor cereal production. I urine and aeces are not added to the

wastewater, but used directly in ood production, health risks

are reduced. Risk assessment indicates no such thing as zero

risk, but control measures can protect armers and consumers.

The World Health Organisation’s new guidelines or reuse o

greywater, urine and aecal matter in agriculture will assist au-

thorities to strike a balance between health risks and reuse o

nutrients and water.

In short, the seminar concluded:• Long-term commitments and broad-based policy reorms

are needed to integrate sustainable practices into sanitationand make them mainstream.

• Policy should be built on unctional requirements, e.g. reuse,

low health risk, aordable, and not based solely on technical

design, and should aim at high-quality sanitation installations.

• Interventions are sought through cross-sectoral, e.g. agricul-

ture, housing, public health, environmental protection and

cross-stakeholder approaches to achieve optimal results.

The Middle East Seminar:Cooperation Prospects in the Euphrates-Tigris Region

Convenors: Euphrates-Tigris Initiative or Cooperation/ Kent State University (ETIC), Global Water Partnership

Medi-terranean (GWP-MED), Swedish InternationalDevelopment Cooperation Agency (Sida), Stockholm

International Water Institute (SIWI) and UNESCO

The history o water management in the Euprates-Tigris basin is

probably the longest recorded in the world. The water problems,

which are both quantity- and qua lity-related, seemed to start

ater an increase in dam building and irrigation in the 1960s.

Armed confict in the region has added to the problems, though

draining o the Iraqi marshlands led to a worldwide reaction.

The major contention is the volumetric amounts in the river.

Currently, bilateral agreements between Turkey-Syria and Syr-

ia-Iraq govern the fow o water in the Euphrates, whereas there

is no ormal agreement or the Tigris.

Since the 1960s there were attempts to oster dialogue and in-

ormation exchange in the region through a series o technical ne-

gotiations, ormally including a joint technical committee by Iraq,Turkey and Syria that started in 1980 and was suspended in 1993.

Now attempts are made to re-establish tri-lateral dialogue. The

Euphrates-Tigris Initiative or Cooperation, ETIC, is the rst com-

prehensive attempt or a “Track II” dialogue. It involves scientists

and established non-governmental organisations, but also govern-

ment ocials. A crucial conceptual aspect o this initiative is that it

looks or broadening the agenda beyond water, thus hoping to in-

crease the chances o breaking through the mentioned deadlocks.

ETIC’s activities aim at organising dialogues, capacity building,

dissemination o inormation and starting joint projects.

In short, the seminar concluded:• While Track I eort s should continue and be strengthened,

there is a need and role or Track II initiatives.

• Track II eorts could be on capacity building, dialogues

and dissemination o inormation.

• Regional initiatives, like ETIC, are an opportunity or

enhanced cooperation and synergetic eects within and

between civil society, public sector, research community

etc. Coordinated nancial support rom inside and outsidethe region is decisive on the eect o this initiative.




S E M I N A R S Turning Assessment Findings into Action:

Results o The Comprehensive Assessment On WaterManagement In Agriculture (CA)

Convenor: The Comprehensive Assessment on Water

Management in Agriculture (CA) and the CGIAR Chal-lenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF)

Developing and managing water resources to help end poverty

and hunger, eed an additional 2 billion people, while reversing

trends o ecosystem degradation presents the most signicant

water challenge o our time. Despite great gains in ood produc-

tion, the use o water or ood security and poverty reduction

remains unnished business or millions o rural poor. The

dilemma is that more people will require more water or agri-

culture, yet the way in which people use water in agriculture is

the most important driver o ecosystem degradation. Taking

up this challenge wi ll lead us toward attaining the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs) on poverty, hunger and environ-

ment. Sharply diverging views exist on the water-ood-ecosys-

tem choices. These are exacerbated by dierences in language

and approaches. There is a need to build a common ground.

The Comprehensive Assessment in Water Management in

Agriculture (CA) was conducted to provide policy relevant rec-

ommendations on the way orward over the next 50 years. It nds

that there is enough land, water and human capacity to produce

sucient ood or a growing population but reveals a manage-

ment crisis with growing competition, and inequity. To resolve

this crisis, we need to shit our thinking and actions.Today’s water management challenges dier greatly rom

those o 50 years ago. To deal with its complexity, the uture

requires a combination o options. Each strategy will have in-

herent risks and trade-os. The CA explores options or ad-

dressing these g rowing problems. It discusses solutions or

increasing water productivity, getting ood and water to poor

people, investing in and reinventing both rain ed and irrigated

agriculture in a continuum o intermediate systems, and reen-

gineering the policies and institutions as key change drivers.


• Consider a range o options rom pure rain ed to irrigatedagriculture. The middle ground between the two, adding

a little blue water to small holder rain ed systems, can go a

long way in poverty reduction and production gains.

• Support agricultural ecosystem services (e.g. rice elds). Man-

agement practices need to acknowledge these multiple services.

• Shit thinking on how to manage water and learn how to

do it collectively. It implies making dicult choices,

striking trade-os when needed, and multiplying the

“bright spots” o local successes.

P h o t o

: S I W I



S E M I N A R

S E M I N A R S

0 06 WO RL DWAT ERW EEK S YN THE SI S 2

Fighting Corruption to Reduce Poverty:Linking Global and Local Strategies

Convenors: Swedish International Development

Cooperation Agency (Sida) and the Water Integrity Network (WIN) [IRC International Water and Sanitation

Centre, Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI),Swedish Water House (SWH), Transparency International

(TI) and Water and Sanitation Programme (WSP)]

Corruption infuences the governance o water by aecting

who gets what water when, where and how. It also determines

how costs are distributed among individuals, society and the

environment. Corruption thus worsens the world water crisis

and the costs are disproportionately borne by the poor and by

the environment. In spite o this, policy makers and analysts

have only recently identied corruption as an impediment to-

wards the Millennium Development Goals.

Corruption reduces water access levels, discourages invest-

ments and economic growth, undermines democratic principles

and increases the strain on ecosystems. Poor people are particu-

larly aected as corruption undermines their livelihood and di-

verts investments that would otherwise benet them.

Many states, civil society organisations and development

partners have initiated anti-corruption measures, although

there are dierences in terms o scope and the amount o po-

litical backing o ocial rhetoric and policies. Much work

is ad-hoc and initiated without diagnostics directing priorities

and linking anti-corruption measures to the goal o poverty

alleviation. An evidence-based strategy or ght corruption in

the sector is needed.

Anti-corruption eorts within the water sector ace the

challenge o (i) scaling up best practice within the sector; (ii)transorming existing lessons rom other sectors to the specic

conditions o the water sector; (iii) adjusting anti-corruption

tools and measures to variations in national and local govern-

ance structures; and (iv) linking anti-corruption measures to

the goal o poverty reduction.

Corruption in the water sector occurs in public to public,

public to private, and public to consumer interactions. Vital

building blocks to eectively ght water sector corruption in-clude political leadership, accountability, capacity, transpar-

ency, implementation and voice mechanism.

The water supply and sanitation sector has taken a leading

role by developing a value chain analysis linking particular

instances o corruption to early warning indicators and par-

ticular anti-corruption measures. The Water Integrity Network

(WIN) aims to ght corruption in the water sector worldwide.

WIN is an open and inclusive globa l network that promotes

anti-corruption activities and coalition-building at local, re-

gional and global levels between actors rom civil society, pri-

vate and public sectors, media and governments.

In short, the seminar concluded:• Enhance diagnostics to develop empirically based, sector

wide anti-corruption strategies with an explicit ocus on the

needs o the marginalised poor.

• Import and adjust lessons rom other sectors to the

specicities o the water sector and link the sector to na-

tional governance reorms.

• Build political commitment and broad-based stakeholder

engagement.

• Be preventive rather than reactive. Once corruption is

established it tends to become part o entrenched social andeconomic systems.

P h o t o : Q




S E M I N A R S EU Water Initiative Partners Meeting

Convenor: European Commission supported by theSwedish Water House

The EU Water Initiative (EUWI) was launched at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development as a contribution

to achievement o the Mil lennium Development Goals or

drinking water and sanitation, within the context o an inte-

grated approach to water resources management. It is intended

as a catalyst and a oundation or action, acilitating progress

and coordinating the eorts o all actors. The EUWI is a multi-

stakeholder process mobilising partners rom governments, in-

ternational nancial institutions (IFIs) and donors, civil society

organisations, water users and the water industry, both in Eu-

rope and in partner countries. As in previous years, the EUWI

Annual Meeting was held in the context o the World Water

Week, to urther mobilise EUWI partners, to attract new onesand to develop synergies with other international processes.

The meeting consisted o our sessions.• “Inrastructure and Water and Sanitation Services or the

Poor” ocused around the EU Strategy or Arica and the EU-

Arica Partnership on Inrastructure, which brings a new o-

cus on regional economic inrastructure. The meeting started

a process through the activities o the EUWI or the develop-

ment o a water component o the new EU-Arica Partnership

on Inrastructure covering regional water management as the

basis or sustainable development o regional water resources

– sharing benets and responsibilities.

• “Practical Implementation o IWRM in Arica” (a joint

EUWI-Challenge Programme on Water and Foodseminar) to address capacity building barriers to adaptive,

knowledge-based approaches to Integrated Water

Resources Management (IWRM) implementation.

• “Moving the EUWI Forward - Monitoring, Alignment and

Harmonisation” to review the development o a monitoring

system or the EUWI and how this needs to be linked to the

achievement o objectives on aid eectiveness.

• “EU Water Initiative Multi-stakeholder Forum,”

the annual review o progress made by the EUWI during

the previous year and o plans or the coming years.

The outcome o the meetings was positive, conrming the rel-evance o the EUWI and identiying where it needs improve-

ments. The role o local government as a key stakeholder or the

delivery o services was emphasised, as was the role o research

in demonstrating pathways to sustainable water resources

management and contributing to a knowledge-based capacity

building. An increasing ocus on regional water resources man-

agement and water services development needs to be redressed

to re-emphasise that the EUWI is ocused on the water and

sanitation MDG targets and the World Summit on Sustainable

Development (WSSD) target on IWRM.

Managing Freshwater Ecosystems to Reach the MDGs

Convenors: Swedish Society or Nature Conservation

(SSNC) and World Wide Fund or Nature (WWF) Sweden

Freshwater ecosystems are known to have one o the greatest

biodiversity per unit area o habitat o the Earth’s biomes. Ac-

cording to research by IUCN, goods and services derived rom

inland waters (such as ood and drinking water), water ltra-

tion and food control have an estimated global value o several

trillion US dollars. At the same time, the Millennium Ecosys-

tem Assessment has identied inland waters as su ering rom

the greatest loss o biodiversity due to large water inrastructure

projects and other impacts.

In the world’s poorest regions reshwater ecosystems are

crucial or people’s well-being and livelihoods. For example

70% o the dietary animal protein in Malawi is derived rom

reshwater sh; Lake Victoria’s sheries provide protein or

over 8 million people. The yield rom reshwater shing in the

Mekong eeds 80 million people in the reg ion’s low incomecountries – Laos and Cambodia, or example – with high

quality protein and help guarantee basic health needs o the

population.

The economic value o ecosystems must be mainstreamed

into development planning – like Poverty Reduction Strategy

Papers (PSRPs) – and in a language understood by bilateral and

multilateral agencies. There is a great potential or increasing

the yield rom rained agriculture, which would ease the pres-

sure on reshwater ecosystems or irrigation. Rivers not, or very

little, aected by human intererence possess a greater resilience

towards global warming impacts like excessive evaporation and

fooding, which means that they are able to provide ecosystem

services even during a climate change.

In short, the seminar concluded:• Large-scale implementation o small-scale water inrastructure is

a prerequisite to meeting the Millennium Development Goals.

• We must recognise RAINFALL as a basic water resource.

• We must secure resilience against change to avoid ecosystemfip/collapse and secure livelihoods o riverine communities.



S E M I N A R S

Flowing Upstream and Downstream:

Collaboration or Better Management

Convenors: Okavango River Basin Water Commission

(OKACOM), The World Conservation Union (IUCN),Okavango Delta Management Plan (ODMP) and Every River has its People Project (ERP)

True commitment, involvement and collaboration among the

highest levels o government, technical experts and the com-

munities living along the river are essential or the responsive,

adaptive and equitable management o river basin resources.

This seminar on the Okavango River, opened by the respective

Ministers o Water, was convened by three governments together

with civil society representatives, community representatives

and donor agencies to highlight the extent o ongoing collabo-

ration in the basin. The Okavango River Basin Commission isa demonstration o political will at the highest level, and can

be used as a political tool or benet sharing. It is a call and an

opportunity or all other levels o society to ull their commit-

ment in managing this shared resource.

One speaker stressed that a coordinated “three countries-one

basin” approach to management o a river cannot be achieved

overnight. Instead, the building o relationships, trust and col-

laboration is essential in acknowledging that the process is as

important as the result.

The seminar highlighted examples o such collaborative

processes. The presented project activities demonstrated thatstarting with discrete and workable collaborative activities can

go ar in developing the prerequisite trust and relationships.

Such projects can exploit the comparative advantage o each

stakeholder to develop initiatives that promote the sharing o knowledge and experiences while providing tangible benets

to participants. Presentations showed how the three countries

collaborate on hydrological monitoring; transer o lessons up-

stream rom the process o developing a management plan or

the Okavango Delta in downstream Botswana; and mecha-

nisms or basin wide grassroots participation rom the expanse

o the river in management decisions.

In short, the seminar concluded:• Political will and trust are key elements in the creation

o an enabling environment or the development o

OKACOM and its joint activities, and or a sustainedprocess the key is to secure nance.

• The Okavango Basin has a wealth o data but problems

o accessibility and political issues exist around this data.

A meta database is needed, as are strategies and priorities

on what data needs to be collected, and why. It needs to

be known what data has already been collected and what

institutions control it, and each country’s comparative

advantage needs to be used.

• In the Okavango Basin, there is a critical role or

relationship building and trust among stakeholders.

Key to this is the strengthening o existing institutionalstructures, a meaningul stakeholder participation and

ownership, including claried responsibilities on a ll levels.


P h o t o : S I W I




S E M I N A R S Future Wastewater Treatment

In Focus: Regions Around the Baltic Sea and Other Closed Seas


(SIWI) and VARIM

The seminar aim was to describe dierent aspects o present and u-

ture modern wastewater treatment and management to meet exist-

ing and emerging water quality problems. The seminar had a broad

concept ranging rom water quality in closed seas, what treatment

technology can do, implementation and management rom consult-

ants, industries and municipalities, and nancing aspects. The semi-

nar was attended by leading experts rom dierent elds contribut-

ing to both specic and general issues during the seminar.

In short, the seminar concluded:• Closed seas in large river basins like the Baltic Sea, the Black

Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, Lake Victoria and others havemuch in common. Specic inormation was given on the use o

the MARE-model as a decision making tool or nutrient eects

on the Baltic Sea. Still, there is a need or better understanding

o the relative role o phosphorus and nitrogen discharges on

algal growth and type o algae in dierent parts o a sea. An in-

tegrated approach on river basins should be used in accordance

with the EU Water Framework Directive and similar directives.

• Wastewater treatment has a long history with successive changes

o main ocus. Much improvement has occurred both in small-scale and large-scale solutions, including recent interest in mem-

brane technology. Increased attention today is given to removal o

pharmaceuticals, eects o antibiotics on resistance o bacteria and

other problems related to human health and recipient ecosystems.

Control and automation can signicantly increase treatment

eciency and at the same time reduce costs.

• The consultants, industries and municipalities must ollow

up on the rapid developments in the water industry.

Dierent examples were given how the Swedish industry

aces uture challenges both nationally and internationally.

• Financing is a key issue or improvement o wastewater treat-

ment. Examples were given by the Nordic Investment Bank (NIB) on nancing o wastewater treatment and dierent

ways o help in nancing is necessary in countries around

the Baltic Sea still lacking adequate acilities or ecient

treatment. In countries with already existing wastewater

treatment acilities, a way to increase treatment eciency is

to use discharge ees, as or instance in Denmark.

The Founders Seminar:

Business on the Ground – When Solving Local Community Water Issues Becomes Part o Doing Business

Convenors: Stockholm Water Foundation and World

Business Council or Sustainable Development (WBCSD),presented in honour o the Stockholm Water Prize Laure-

ate and the Stockholm Industry Water Award Winner

Conclusions rom the new report “Business in the World o Water”

rom the World Business Council or Sustainable Development were

presented as an introduction to the panel discussion or this seminar.

The report contained the ollowing recommendations: clariy and

enhance understanding by business o the key issues and drivers o

change related to water; promote mutual understanding between

the business community and non-business stakeholders on water

management issues; and support eective business action as part o

the solution to sustainable water management.

Actions taken by dierent businesses and industries were pre-

sented as examples o possible contributions or development.

Examples o such actions are: ensuring ecient use o water to

minimise impacts on the local population; ensuring the local

populations have enough water or their use; delivering clean

drinking water at aordable cost to the local community; andsegregation o “wastewater” sources or treatment.

It was stated that strengthening o the public sector and de-

velopment o local private enterprise in developing countries

should go hand by hand. The private sector can contribute in

capacity building and education and should be invited to par-

ticipate in that type o activities.

The participants agreed that there are really ew limits to

what a company can or should do to help to provide sae water

and sanitation, but also that those that regulate private enter-

prise do so with a recognition o the boundaries o sound busi-

ness and the respective rms’ abilities.

In short, the seminar concluded:• A company’s policies and actions should go beyond the

limits o responsibility and seek opportunities to support

community water supply and sanitation.

• Larger, more established companies locating themselves

in a region should open a dialogue with smaller existing

companies and transer knowledge to them.

• The private sector can make a positive contribution and

needs to be invited to participate in stakeholder processes.




S E M I N A R S

Promoting IWRM Beyond Borders: Transboundary Waters and Human Development

Convenors: UNDP Human Development Report Ofce

and Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI)

Although river and lake basins span national boundaries, Inte-

grated Water Resources Management (IWRM) continues to be

largely restricted to national legislation and policies. This high-

level seminar asked three questions: why do transboundary wa-

ters matter or human development; how serious is the threat o

water wars; and how can IWRM be promoted beyond borders?

Hydrological interdependence binds not only countries togeth-

er but also people and their livelihoods. With two in ve people

living in transboundary water basins, managing interdependence

on this scale is a challenge or the international community. Failure

to cooperate – and the mismanagement that results – has adverse

implications or human development: lost livelihoods, declining health standards, and environmental collapse. The importance o

“green water” and better management o rain ed agriculture to

eed millions o people in the uture urther underlined the need

or improved management o river basins and their ecosystems.

The seminar urged that rather than ocus on the threat o wa-

ter wars, it was more urgent to pay attention to the daily threats

to human security that aected people in transboundary water

basins. The world’s governments need to stop thinking about

water as a “national” resource in the narrow sense and start

thinking about managing shared water at the basin level.

The theme o the World Water Week – “Beyond the River”

– is relevant. The problem is that countries compete with each

other on water allocations. Instead, cooperative ventures can yieldrich dividends in areas including hydropower, food and sediment

control to navigation, commerce and broader regional integration.

What is missing, oten, is the political leadership to promote initia-

tives that tend to generate benets over the long run.

Also missing are the institutions to ably manage water resources

at the basin level. The seminar examined several models o river

basin cooperation o increasing institutional depth, rom the Indus

Waters Treaty to the Senegal R iver Development Organisation

and the Southern Arican Development Community experience.


• Focus on human development needs assessments, throughexpanded data gathering activities and direct community

involvement.

• Strengthen river basin institutions to ensure they have

broad mandates, autonomy in operation and enorcement,

and sucient technical and nancial capacity to imple-

ment basinwide programmes.

• Create the political incentives or cooperation by

expanding the basket o benets and supporting

negotiations over a long period.

Sanitation Partnerships:Harnessing Their Potential or Urban On-site Sanitation

Convenors: Building Partnerships or Development in

Water and Sanitation (BPD)

Partnerships seem clearly warranted or sanitation. Yet evidence

o eective partnerships remains scarce.

In 2006, or the rst time, more than hal o the world’s

population will be urban. Many will reside in mushrooming

inormal settlements, where the chances o connecting them

to sewerage networks are slim. “On-site sanitation” is their

only recourse, which or many poor households means pit la-

trines or worse.

Calls or partnerships to help those without proper access to

sanitation are growing. But while we increasingly understand the

circumstances in which partnerships to provide urban solid waste

collection or drinking water can fourish, much less is known

about how to oster large-scale partnerships or sanitation.

BPD recently worked with sanitation partnerships in ve

Arican cities – Dar es Salaam, Durban, Maputo, Maseru andNairobi. The aim was to see where partnerships t into eorts

to improve on-site sanitation and understand better what makes

them succeed or ail.

The Stockholm seminar built on this, discussing three pos-

sible roles or partnerships in on-site sanitation. The rst role,

highlighted by a case study rom Madagascar, is to improve

existing “sanitation transactions.” The second, as practiced in

Durban, South Arica, nds ways to harness these transactions

towards public health goals. The last role, which generated

heated discussion amongst participants, is to overcome the in-

stitutional ragmentation that bedevils sanitation delivery.

In short, the seminar concluded:• Organisations need to think proactively about how to

broaden the “sanitation ladder” in poor urban communities.

• Urban sanitation needs to be seen as part o a system where

removal and treatment o waste are as important as

providing access to a acility.

• It is crucial to understand how land tenure and landlord/ten-ant relationships rame attitudes to sanitation investments.




S E M I N A R S Hydro-Hegemony

Convenors: King’s College London, London Water Re-search Group, Stockholm International Water Institute

(SIWI) and the Swedish International Development

Cooperation Agency (Sida)

“Beyond the river” there is POWER, towards which water

fows uphill. The Hydro-Hegemony seminar explored and ex-

posed how international transboundary water interactions are

determined by power relations. By allowing that “the absence

o war does not mean the absence o confict,” the approach

widens the scope o transboundary water analysis to a more

critical perspective o the nature o confict and cooperation.

Those o us concerned about transboundary Integrated Water

Resources Management (IWRM) and benet-sharing would

do well to take note.

The session revealed how the outcome o transboundary water interactions is determined by the interplay o power be-

tween the competitors. The disproportionate power enjoyed by

the more powerul riparian (the “hydro-hegemon”) allows it to

set the agenda and sanction the discourse in its own sel-interest

– whether or not this i or unilateral or collective good.

For example, the “hegemonic leadership” role that South A-

rica plays along the Orange River has provided benets or its

weaker riparian neighbours. The Jordan River panel showed that

extreme asymmetries in power have enabled an Israeli-Jordanian

bi-lateral agreement that eectively precludes equitable sharing

with Lebanon, Syria and Palestine. Eective cooperation being

obstructed by a treaty was ound also to exist along the Ganges-

Brahmaputra-Meghna. The Southern Asia panel exposed the e-

ects o Indian hydro-hegemony elt by upstream Nepal in termso missed opportunities and by downstream Bangladesh in terms

o disastrous cycles o food and drought.

In deconstructing power relations, progress towards more

sustainable and equitable transboundary regimes was identi-

ed. Hydro-hegemons o a more oppressive character appear

opposed to the application o the principles o international

water law, or example. Donor unding i s geared towards the

discourse sanctioned by the more powerul. The nature o the

hegemony and asymmetry may be addressed through a variety

o means. It was noted that the “power o the weak” means that

the less powerul riparians may have more options available to

them than typically perceived.

In short, the seminar concluded:• Power relations determine the outcome o international

transboundary water interaction – in terms o sharing,

access and management options.

• The most powerul riparian (the “hydro-hegemon”) can shape

the nature o the interaction – or unilateral or collective good.

• Hydro-hegemony may be used to guide all riparians to-

wards a common goa l. It may also be resisted or a ltered by

the sot power o the weaker riparians.

P h o t o

: M a t s L a n n e r s t a d




S E M I N A R S

Financing Integrated Water Resources Management in the North

– Strategies and Experiences

Convenor: NoWNET (Australia Water Partnership,

Danish Water Forum, Global Water Partnership, Japan

Water Forum, Korea Water Forum, Netherlands WaterPartnership, Swedish Water House and World WaterCouncil)

The structure o nancing mechanisms or water requires a com-

bination o “Success Factors” to be chosen based upon the so-

cial, economic, cultural, and physical conditions o each country.

Some o these include:

• Active public participation and stakeholder

ownership o the process,

• Strong, pragmatic and fexible legislation

(e.g.: earmarked pollution taxes, user ees/taxes),

• Decentralised management and dierent levels o political autonomy, and

• Consideration o country-specic water issues

(e.g.: food control in Japan and the Netherlands, the

importance o municipal-level authority in France).

The European Water Framework Directive (EU WFD) is push-

ing countries toward cost recovery (where users pay or services).

Partnership or Capacity Development on WASH:Building Commitment or ActionConvenors: Cap-Net, Streams o Knowledge and IRC

International Water and Sanitation Centre

One o the most important challenges o the Millennium Devel-

opment Goals (MDGs) is to ensure that the water and sanitation

targets will be reached and result in sustainable access, especially or

the poor. Lack o human and institutional capacity is a major con-

straint to achieving the MDGs. The seminar intended to build com-

mitment and cooperation to address capacity building needs, and

increase understanding, opportunities and priorities or action.

It is widely acknowledged that capacity development, espe-

cially at the intermediate and local levels, is key in achieving

the MDGs in water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and that

more needs to be done to scale up and maximise the impact o

capacity building activities. The workshop thereore addressed

the ollowing questions:

• what capacities are needed to achieve the MDGs in WASH,

• are we reaching the right people,

• are we managing the knowledge base, and

• how can we build cooperation or increased impact o capacity building action?

Partnerships o key players in capacity building in WASH can help

scaling up the impacts o action. To develop the right tools and

methods, needs and impacts have to be assessed and monitored. Ca-

pacity building should be at the centre o attention and locally de-

livered to ensure relevance to address issues o marginalised groups.

Inormation centres or knowledge management and sharing are es-

sential to get the required knowledge to the lowest levels.

In short, the seminar concluded:• Greater attention should be given to the assessment o

needs, and delivery o capacity building to improve the

sustainability o water, sanitation and hygiene services.

• To maximise eectiveness and impact, capacity building

activities will have to be careully targeted to reach the right

people at the right levels including the decentralised local level.

• Improved access to existing knowledge through

eective partnerships and better knowledge management

will greatly assist capacity building in WASH.

• Better measurement o impacts o capacity building is needed

to justiy investments in capacity building activities alongsidethe new investments being made in inrastructure.

In Sweden and Denmark, agriculture remains the sector where

the greatest investments will be needed, mainly because o the

pollution it produces. There are also growing external envi-ronmental costs required to meet new standards or domestic

supplies.

National water partnerships are perceived as useul mecha-

nisms or bringing together stakeholders rom dierent sectors

(government, knowledge institutions, NGOs and the private

sector) and or mobilising activities at the national and interna-

tional scales. The experience o the Japan Water Forum shows

that international networking promotes domestic networking.

In the South, national water partnerships have been develop-

ing more rapidly than in the North. It is believed the Northern

Water Network (NoWNET) can and should do more to pro-

mote and acilitate the creation o such partnerships.Like the nancing mechanisms, there is no clear blueprint

or creating a successul national water partnership. NoWNET

members oer a variety o dierent structures, rom the “cluster

group” approach o the Swedish Water House to the “acilita-

tor” approach o the Netherlands Water Partnership. Dierent

models are emerging as new partnerships are created in France,

Korean and Australia.




Partnerships in Action

Convenor: Water Supply and SanitationCollaborative Council (WSSCC) and

Water and Sanitation Programme (WSP)

Today, 2.6 billion people still lack access to adequate sanita-

tion and every year, diarrhoeal diseases triggered by inadequate

sanitation acilities and unsae hygiene behaviour kill millions

o people, most o them children. Improved sanitation and hy-

giene will help speed up the achievement o all eight Millen-

nium Development Goals. Despite this, sanitation and hygiene

have been called the ”orphan child” o the water and sanitation

sector with the responsibilities oten divided within national

government ministries, bi-lateral donor departments, United

Nations organisations, national and international non-govern-

mental organisation, sometimes without any collaboration.

With this reality, partnerships in sanitation and hygiene inter-ventions are more important than in any sector.

The seminar eatured a number o presentations on suc-

cessul partnerships such as the Public Private Partnership or

Handwashing, the WASH movement in Ethiopia, partner-

ships with youth in Bulgaria and the Diorano-WASH Coali-

tion in Madagascar. The seminar was ocused around three

main issues: 1) success actors, 2) replication possibilities and

3) scaling up.

Discussions in-between and ater the presentations high-

lighted other examples o sanitation and hygiene partnerships

and raised specic questions on the experiences presented.

In short, the seminar concluded:Success factors

• A limited number o partners in the beginning, who orm a

core group o ”ounding” partners and bring in additionalpartners when there are concrete needs.

• A thorough mapping and research o potential partners

beore they are invited to the table.

• The acceptance that all partners have dierent agendas, as

long as this is clear rom the beginning.

• An equal vote or all partners.

• Creation o a separate partnership logo, so that there is no

need or all organisations to have their own stamp (logo)

on partnership materials and outputs.

• Room or the partnerships to evolve.

Replication

• A global ramework can acilitate the replication in othercountries i it is fexible enough to give room or national/

regional adaptation.

Scaling Up • Going to scale through partnerships requires a balance

between structure and fexibility.

• Does increased channelling o unds to successul partnerships

mean scaling up, or will it destroy the partnerships through

shits in the power balance and the ramework o collaboration?

• Scaling up does not necessarily mean that partnerships

increase their own activities, but the partnership can serve

as a channel or resources to individual partners and there- with strengthen their respective scaling up eort s.

S E M I N A R S

P h o t o

: W S S C C




S E M I N A R S

Saudi Water Day Convenor: Prince Sultan Bin Abdulaziz International Prize or

Water, Prince Sultan Research Center or Environment, Waterand Desert, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

The Kingdom o Saudi Arabia is located under extremely aridconditions with very limited water resources. Immense eorts on

local and international levels have been exerted to solve this serious

challenge. Through the Prince Sultan Bin Abdulaziz International

Prize or Water, the Kingdom has since 2002 rewarded eorts by

innovative scholars and scientists to advance research on problems

associated water resources, particularly in arid regions.

The Kingdom’s rapid development coupled with population

growth and improvements in living standards have increased na-

tional water demand rom under 6 billion cubic meters per year in

1974 to about 20 billion cubic meters per year in 2005. The Saline

Water Conversion Corporation (SWCC) has utilised, with cost

eective approaches, the sea water and groundwater desalinationprocesses to produce about 1150 million cubic meters per year or

drinking purposes by several large coastal and inland cities. The

national research centres in dierent universities have also partici-

pated in solutions-oriented research or the water challenges.

Examples were presented rom King Saud University, King

Fahd University o Petroleum and Minerals, King Abdulaziz Uni-

versity and King Faisal University. Presented technologies included

King Fahad’s Rainwater and Runo Harvesting project, the use o

advanced numerical approaches in groundwater fow simulation to

protect the coastal aquiers and groundwater in major cities along

the Eastern Coast, the development o new techniques to control

shallow water table rise problems in large cities, and the successul

use o polymers in agricultural water conservation. Another brie was about the Ministry o Water and Electricity

vision to achieve world class utilities by transorming the water

sector by targeting key areas such as water demand management,

organisational restructuring and progress towards privatisation

o services. The nancial support through the Saudi Fund or

drinking water acilities land irrigation, water treatment, sea wa-

ter desalination and dams’ construction in developing countries

in Arica and Asia was a true example o the Saudi eorts or

solving the water problems on the international level.


• The Prince Sultan Bin Abdulaziz International Prize or Water is a serious and noble initiative to reward innovative

scholars and scientists worldwide.

• Eorts in the Kingdom can serve as models nationally

and internationally or achieving the Mil lennium

Development Goals and or securing sae water and

sanitation or all by 2025.

Hard or Sot Landing in Closing Basins?Coping with Quantity and Quality ChallengesConvenors: The Comprehensive Assessment o Water

Management in Agriculture (CA), the CGIAR ChallengeProgram on Water and Food (CPWF) and Stockholm

International Water Institute (SIWI)

As growing amounts o water are diverted and consumed in a river

basin, stream fow is increasingly depleted, reducing downstream

availability, dilution capacity and the ability to meet environmen-

tal fow requirements. As the river shrinks, the basin is said to be

closing; when all fows have been allocated, the basin is closed. The

seminar addressed the closing process.

The main driver o the closing process is agriculture, although

several other drivers may contribute to overallocation: redressing

inequities, incomplete hydrological understanding and political

pressures. As stream fow decreases, sector interconnectedness

increases – but so do upstream/downstream conficts o interest,

and the need or integrated management approaches. Closing

may proceed in stages: rom user perception to overallocation

and nally to hydrological closing. Temporary relie through

groundwater or inter-basin transers may postpone the process.

The issue o hard or sot landing reers to the risk or either

collapse or adaptation. Typical responses in closing basins aredemand management to buy time, institutional adjustments and

value-based allocation renegotiations. It was noted though that

the lower value associated to agricultural production is not sus-

tainable in the long term. When consumptive use has reduced

the remaining environmental fow reserve, it may be dicult to

reallocate water or that purpose. The surge or bioenergy and

its potential to raise local income imply that consumptive water

use may grow signicantly in coming years.

In short, the seminar concluded:• River basin closing has developed into a sizeable

challenge o extreme importance in developing countries

dependent on agriculture, and necessitates increased ocus

on the depletive component o water use.

• Bioenergy production is a growing sector o high value

biomass production, which may increasingly compete with

low value ood production, increase the competition or

water, and add another driver to basin closure.

• Future management o closing river basins calls or a

systems analysis, seeing the basin as a complex socio-

cultural-natural resource system, understanding how a

change in water and land use in one part o the basin im-

pacts others in the basin, and involving diverse groupso users in inormed decision making processes.




S E M I N A R S What’s Water Worth?

The Economic Case or Water in Poverty Reductionand National Development

Convenors: Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI),

Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) , UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP) and WorldHealth Organization (WHO)

The prominence o water management in international discus-

sions on poverty reduction and sustainable development has led to

a high level o political support or water as an issue, but this has

rarely translated into eective action or, in particular, increased

investment fows. Too oten investments in water have been seen as

incapable o producing direct returns to economic growth and de-

velopment; as a result, the limited resources available are prioritised

or other sectors perceived to be more productive. The evidence

available, however, suggests the contrary: investments in dierentaspects o water management do oer good rates o return. The

problem is that this evidence is incomplete, largely segmented by

sub-sector and rarely compiled at the national level.

This session discussed the need to develop a methodology

to measure water’s contribution to Gross Domestic Product

(GDP) and poverty reduction at the national level. A group o

partner organisations (UNDP, SEI, WHO, SIWI, IUCN and

IWMI) presented a new initiative designed to develop such a methodology and pilot it in an Asian and an Arican country.

The group emphasised that the expected end result would be

action-oriented: to generate higher levels o investment in and

support or the water sector.

In short, the seminar concluded:• The concept o economic analyses o water is relevant and

o high priority, and more work is needed to make the case

“context specic” and to address the equity aspects.

• The political economy o water resources management and

water supply and sanitation investments needs to be taken

into consideration, with a broader outlook that includes suchissues as institutional capacities, training needs, markets and

nancing mechanisms, time scales o mandate periods and

return on investments, and beneciary groups.

• Benchmarking and learning rom other sectors could be

helpul in convincing policymakers that investing in water

is a sound economic strategy.

SIWI Seminar or Young Water Proessionals:Co-management o Water or Livelihoods and Ecosystems


That local communities are acing massive challenges in making

balanced decisions on water resources management with regard to

using water resources or sustaining livelihoods while at the same

time maintaining ecosystem unctions and services was very clear

rom all the presentations given in the seminar. It was noted that

many ecosystems around the world have been degraded and will

require daring and innovative approaches to restore their unction-

ality and resilient capacity while keeping in mind the complex in-

teractions o water systems, ood production and ecosystems.

There has been a growing consensus that the best approach

to address this issue is by minimising tradeos between ood

production and ecosystem unctions and services through adop-

tion and adaptation o innovative technologies. Some o the most

promising technologies deal with increasing ood production un-

der rain ed agricultural systems.

Targeting these areas can have long-term benets o restoring

land and water quality while preserving and maintaining ecosys-

tems. Nevertheless, trade-os between dierent uses oten take

place. It is thus essential to promote dialogue and negotiationsbetween upstream and downstream while taking into account

ecosystem unctions and services. Although co-management

has been increasingly promoted, the cases discussed illustrated

some o the most pressing problems that need to be overcome:

empowering local stakeholders; embracing local-level initiatives;

ocusing on negotiation-based approaches; and sharing a sense o

ownership in research, development and extension services. The

role o shared visions was also emphasised.

In short, the seminar concluded:• There is a need or easible technologies which incorpo-

rate local knowledge and are easily embraced by other

stakeholders at dierent scales, and that are able to serve

multiple ecosystem unctions.

• It is important to integrate scientic research with policy

making through implementation o sound collaborative

platorms, with special eorts dedicated to empower local

communities in decision making.

• Dialogue and negotiations between upstream and down-

stream water users and other stakeholders at dierent scales

need to be promoted and encouraged while nurturing the

concept o agro-ecology or implementation at all scales.




Under Cover? Transboundary Aquiers

– The Hidden Asset or RiparianCooperation in Arica

Convenors: Federal Institute or Geosciences and

Natural Resources (BGR) Germany, InternationalAssociation or Hydrogeologists (IAH), Stockholm

International Water Institute (SIWI), UNEP Division o the Global Environment Facility (UNEP DGEF), UNESCO

International Hydrological Programme (UNESCO-IHP)

Groundwater is a signicant source o water in arid and semi-arid

regions o Arica. It is largely independent o seasonal fuctuations

and less dependent on climatic change. It serves a majority o

households in rural areas with reliable drinking water and provides

a highly cost eective basis or ood production. Hence it is a key

to achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

Riparian cooperation on transboundary aquiers linked to ex-

isting cooperation on surace waters can provide social and eco-

nomic benets. The Arican Minister’s Council on Water (AM-

COW) together with the convenors and participants promoted

the “Stockholm Message on Transboundary Groundwater or

Arica.” This aims at raising the awareness o decision makers and

relevant stakeholders to the value o this hidden resource, and

seeks to intensiy their support or enhanced transboundary coop-

eration. The Stockholm Message calls or an explicit integration o

groundwater into water resource management or social and eco-

nomic development and environmental sustainability.

Such integration depends upon raising awareness and ca-

pacity among stakeholders o the groundwater potential. Also,

strengthening o the hydrological-hydrogeological knowledge

base or a judicious utilisation o this resource is needed. The ex-

isting 24 Arican agreements or river/lake basins oer a sound

oundation or ully integrating groundwater in transboundary cooperation; international nancing or this is needed.

The seminar participants stressed these central points o the

Stockholm Message during the discussion. Cooperation over

transboundary aquiers is highly encouraged and promoted

through the establishment o adequate joint mechanisms, ol-

lowing rules o international law. Transboundary groundwater

management should be ully integrated into the scope o the

responsibility o existing and appropriate basin organisations.Sound science-based knowledge will reinorce IWRM, as it

must build on inormed decisions. Such a knowledge base re-

quires considerable investments in e.g. monitoring systems and

exploration, which is signicantly undernanced when com-

pared with surace waters.

In short, the seminar concluded:• A proclamation was made or better integration o ground-

water into the scope o work o existing river/lake basin

organisations or the establishment o new institutions

where the geographical scope o surace and groundwater

does not t together.

• Participants’ and convenors’ call or enhanced unding

or monitoring networks especially by international

nancing agencies as the establishment o a sound

knowledge base is a undamental element o groundwater

management being part o IWRM.

• AMCOW’s and convenors’ interest in establishing a

ollow-up process including a regular review o progress

aiming at put into practice the “Stockholm Message on

Transboundary Groundwater or Arica” and the above

mentioned seminar outcomes.

S E M I N A R S

P h o t o : M a t s L a n n e

r s t a d




Water and Wastewater in the Sustainable City How Could the Swedish Concept Contribute to SustainableSolutions in Urban and Peri-urban Areas?


and the Swedish Water and Wastewater Association(VARIM)

The world’s rapidly increasing urbanisation is taking place

mostly in small- and medium-size towns in developing coun-

tries. Sustainable, integrated city planning in these small towns

is vitally important to improve the l ie quality, health, comort

and saety o humans and nature.

At the seminar, the Swedish concept o “the Sustainable

City,” a holistic and integrated approach where dierent sector

elds like water and wastewater, energy, trac and urban plan-

ning work together, was presented. Necessary tools to make

this possible are institutional arrangements and policies where

stakeholders plan the uture together. Hammarby Sjöstad, a

new eco-riendly residential area in Stockholm, and the strate-

gic urban planning model used in the city o Gothenburg, the

“Urban Water Toolbox,” were presented. Small and large-scale

examples rom China, Bangladesh, India and Honduras as well

as the EcoSan system were also presented.

The complexity o the situation was urther highlighted

by presentations o the UN-HABITAT Lake Victoria Project,

which is directed to the poorest o the poor, involving govern-

ments and users in Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya.

To make cities in developing countries sustainable, local in-volvement and community mobilisation are key issues. Solutions

must be socially and culturally acceptable. Building human re-

sources capacity is very important. Education is needed or peopleto understand that improving sanitation brings benets to other

parts o their lie and is thereore worth nancing. Financial and

technical assistance is required to support the institutionalisation

o the stakeholders’ engagement process, but the project must be

a village’s or town’s and not considered the consultant’s project.

Discussions highlighted the prohibitive cost o the Swedish mod-

el. Financing is an enormous task as not enough money is coming

into the water and waste sectors. In many countries cost recovery is

dicult. We must build nancing models that are attractive also to

local investors, encourage small, local domestic investment, public-

private partnerships and help develop a subsidies structure that is

sustainable, can be targeted and is linked to outputs.

The UN-HABITAT view: Local ownership + accountabil-

ity or programme outcomes = programme sustainability.

In short, the seminar concluded:• Swedish industry can export experience, technical assist-

ance and technical solutions suitable to local conditions.

• It is important to nd solutions or the small and medium

towns – integrating water supply, sanitation, waste han-

dling, etc., with urban planning.

• It is important to build local human resources capacity leading

to local involvement, interaction and cooperation in strategicplanning, governance, nancing, ownership and operation.

S E M I N A R S

P h o t o : M a t s L a

n n e r s t a d




Side EventsDonor Country Approaches to Water-RelatedDevelopment Cooperation

Focus Area:Water Resources Inrastructure

Convenors: Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI)in cooperation with the Netherlands Ministry o Foreign

Aairs, Department or International Development, United

Kingdom, Ministry o Foreign Aairs o Denmark, U.S.Department o State and The Federal Ministry or EconomicCooperation and Development, Germany Do we have to go or the “big push” and invest heavily again in

the water sector in order to achieve the Millennium Develop-

ment Goals (MDGs) and orget about all this talk o improving

institutions, governance, etc.? This was the provocative ques-

tion asked by the convenor to the members o a panel in the side

event, in part in response to comments rom the 2005 World

Water Week, statements by luminaries such as Pro. Jerey Sachs

and the recently launched EU Water Initiative. The panellists,

who represented all continents, did not all into the trap o stick-ing to one or the other extreme, despite the moderator’s and con-

venor’s best eorts. Donor countries, it was clear, are diversiying

their activities and spreading them over the whole range o hard

and sot approaches. However, recipient country and NGO rep-

resentatives criticised the top-down approach in which many do-

nor projects are still implemented. The main outcome was that

investments are needed, but they have to be accompanied by a

high degree o user participation and provisions or improv-

ing managerial and governance skills at the administrative and

management levels o the partner governments.

From Poster toPowerPoint to Pod Cast:Reaching the Public with Meaningul Visual Inormationabout Water, Drainage Basins and the Hydrologic Cycle

Convenor: Watershed Media ProjectThe side event presented or discussion a number o short (1–5

minute) lms about water, intended to be disseminated prima-

rily over the internet to an international audience. The many uses o these lms was discussed, including how they can be

made useul or the water community in the dissemination o

essential knowledge about water to stakeholders and the gen-

eral public. This well-attended side event was a successul proo

o concept or the production o short educational lms about

water, deliverable on-line and via video I-pod. The audience

strongly supported the need or more short lms about water

that can be universally understood.

New Aid Modalitiesin the Water Sector

Convenor: Ministry o Foreign Aairs o Denmark (Danida)

Co-convenors: Ministry o Foreign Aairs o the Netherlands (DGIS) and Overseas Development

Institute (ODI), UK The side event ocused on key challenges and actual lessons

learned with harmonisation and alignment o donor assistance

in the water sector. It was concluded that strong, visionary

country leadership is a prerequisite or eective harmonisation

and alignment o development eorts, and that genuine gov-

ernment commitment to change and reorms is necessary. Also,

harmonisation takes place at country level, and that is where it

should start. Donors who want to harmonise and be partners

in national programmes should be represented at the country

level and be willing to change ways o doing things in order to

explore new opportunities or multi-partner arrangements. A

decentralised mandate and accountability among donors in de-

cision making is important to advance the preparation and im-

plementation o country-led national programmes. Finally, the

individual sector context is important – there are no blueprints

to harmonisation and alignment, and donors should take a step-by-step approach to allow or fexibility and adaptability.

P h o t o : S I W I




Side Events

The Second Edition o “Sir Richard Jolly Lecture Series”

Convenor: Water Supply and Sanitation CollaborativeCouncil (WSSCC)Ms. Hilde F. Johnson, co-convener o the WSSCC initiative

”Women Leaders or WASH” and the ormer Minister o In-

ternational Development o Norway, linked improvements in

water supply, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) to the achieve-

ment o the Millennium Development Goals, with a particular

ocus on the situation and role o women. The lack o access to

sae water and adequate sanitation acilities aects all members

o a household but women and girls in developing countries are

the ones carrying the heaviest burden and paying the highest

price. The vital role o women in WASH interventions is un-

deniable and there is clear evidence that women’s infuence and

involvement in community projects make them more likely to

succeed in the long run. Even so, women are oten disregarded

in the decision process and their special needs not taken into

consideration, leading to well-intended new acilities al ling

into disuse. Ms. Johnson concluded her lecture by stressing that

commitment rom decision makers, empowerment o women,

increased investment and eorts in breaking the taboos are

needed to reach the MDGs, not just or water and sanitationbut all eight o them.

“Water and Film”: From MexicoCity to Istanbul via Stockholm

Convenors: French Water Academy, InternationalSecretariat or Water and Comision Nacional del Agua

(CONAGUA, Mexico)The 1st International “Water and Film” took place in Mexico

City during the 4th World Water Forum in March 2006. In

Stockholm, the lm catalogue, as well as some trailers o thespots and lms awarded, was presented. In addition, an ac-

count o the roundtable on “Water, Film and Cultural Diversi-

ty,” which was held in the Citizen’s House, was given. The side

event recommended the integration, in World Water Weeks

2007 and 2008, o a ”Water and Film” platorm as steps to-

wards the International ”Water and Film” Event in Istanbul or

the 5th World Water Forum in 2009.

Water Scenarios to 2025:

Business in the World o Water

Convenor: World Business Council or SustainableDevelopment (WBCSD)The WBCSD Water Scenarios ocus on eciency, security and

interconnectivity. They are a tool or business to evaluate the

strategic relevance o water, their exposure a long the lie cycles,

and to identiy where stakeholder approaches are needed (see www.wbcsd.org/web/H2Oscenarios.htm). At the side event,

it was shown how the scenarios are a ramework or looking

“beyond the river” as they create a common language and a

shared context so that we can begin conversation on the u-

ture o water. The discussions gave some insights into how one

would succeed in moving “beyond the river.” These include the

need o: a change in mindset with regards to water reuse and

recycling; dierent water tables with dierent stakeholders at

each table; and a governance structure or a more holistic water

management, which can only happen i it is isolated rom the

politics o the day.





Small Multi-PurposeReservoir Planning

Convenor: Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) Well-designed small reservoirs have the potential to improve the

lives o people who grow irrigated crops and sh, water livestock

and use water in their households. With better inormation, people

in small communities will enjoy sustainable production systems

that improve their livelihoods without compromising the qual-

ity o the environment. The side event showed how science-based

planning and management o small multi-purpose reservoirs sup-

ports sustainable water allocation and the healthy, productive useo community reservoirs or the improvement o livelihoods.

The Dierence a Tree Can Make:

Water, Tree and Soil Interactionsin Tropical Watersheds

Convenor: World Agroorestry Centre (ICRAF)The side event provided insight into the ways trees can be best

managed to advance watershed management objectives and the

implications or watershed management policy and programme

design. The ndings presented at the side event were dawnrom more than 20 years research, by ICRAF and its partners,

which shows the nuanced roles o trees in watersheds. Decidu-

ous trees reduce dry-season water use, riparian vegetation re-

duces sedimentation, and trees that anchor and bind reduce

landslide risk. A series o inormation bries were launched dur-

ing the side event, which was instrumental in networking these

ndings into policy debates in Kenya, Tanzania and Sudan,

as well as laying the oundation or productive partnerships in

Southeast Asia and Latin America.

Donor Country Approaches to Water-RelatedDevelopment Co-operation

Focus Area:Public-Private Partnerships inWater Supply and Sanitation


in cooperation with the Netherlands Ministry o ForeignAairs, Department or International Development,United Kingdom, Ministry o Foreign Aairs o Denmark,

State Department, USA and The Federal Ministry or Eco-nomic Cooperation and Development, Germany For the rst time, SIWI together with other donors organised

a side event where approaches on Private Sector Participation

(PSP) in water supply and sanitation projects were discussed. It

aimed to analyse the past 15 years, a time which has seen both

strong advocacy or private sector involvement as well as pas-

sionate and, at times, violent opposition. The panel members

came rom donor and recipient country governments, as well asrom NGOs. The main impression rom participants is that the

ormer impassioned debate seems to have subsided and been re-

placed with a substantive debate about how to interpret the role

o the private sector with regard to MDG-driven challenges.

Joint eorts which include the private sector are needed, it was

said. In addition, Public-Private Partnerships scored highly be-

cause they can help the blunt criticism o those who advocate

that water supply must remain a “public good.”

Green-Blue Initiative:Integrated Green-Blue Land and Water ResourceManagement or Poverty Alleviation and EcosystemSustainability


(SIWI) and Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI)By solely ocusing on the blue water, water crisis analyses have

been distorted. The Green-Blue Initiative is an eort to address

the policy angle o green water – the main water resource o

poor small-holder armers. The goal is coherent approaches to

blue and green water resources in water governance and policy

interventions. A green and blue water paradigm opens new op-

portunities or investments in water management or livelihood

improvements. Field activities will be carried out in pilot river

basins where strong partnerships will be established with both

river basin and community based organisations. Studies will

ocus on governance approaches integrating green and blue

water management. The Green-Blue Initiative (GBI) is a joint

programme o SIWI, SEI, International Water Management

Institute, International Food Policy Research Institute, The

World Conservation Union and the Association or Strength-

ening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Arica.




Participants rom more than140 countries attended the

2006 World Water Week, butthose coming rom Australia,

Canada, China and Swedencouldn’t be blamed i they

elt an added touch o prideduring the week. That’s

because the winners o

the Stockholm Water Prize,Stockholm Junior WaterPrize, Stockholm Industry

Water Award, Swedish BalticSea Water Award and World Water Week Best Poster

Award came rom thosecountries.

Stockholm was the venueor more than 100 seminars,

workshops, side events and

closed meetings. Still, per-haps the most memorableevents or many participants

will be the dierent celebra-tions honouring excellence

in the water feld.

O the many events participated

in by Pro. Asit K. Biswas – the

Opening Session, the SJWP cer-

emony, the Founders Seminar,

media interviews, and more – none

was more momentous than that on

the evening o August 24.

A ne summer evening greet-

ed Pro. Biswas – as did hundreds

o assembled amily, riends and

guests – to see him accept the 16th

Stockholm Water Prize rom the

hands o H.R.H. Crown Princess

Victoria o Sweden. The tireless

water proponent, noted or con-

stantly challenging the “statusquo,” is an Indian-born Cana-

P h o t o : S I W I

The Stockholm Water Prize

TheStockholmWaterPrizewaspresentedbyH.R.H.CrownPrincessVictoriatoProessorAsitK.BiswasduringaceremonyattheStockholmCityHallonThursday,August.




P h o t o

: S I W I

dian citizen and president o the Mexico

City-based Third World Centre or Water

Management.

At the ceremony in the Stockholm City

Hall, Dr. Akissa Bahri o the independ-

ent international Nominating Committee

noted that Proessor Biswas has made “out-standing and multi-aceted contributions

to global water resource issues, including

research, education and awareness, water

management, human and international re-

lations in both developed and developing

countries.”

Among the many qualied water ex-

perts in di erent disciplines, Pro. Biswas

was heralded or sharing his broad knowl-

edge across many ields internationally,

thereby adding new dimensions to the

wise use and management o the global water resources.

The Stockholm Water Prize, a global

award ounded in 1990 and presented an-

nually to an individual, organisation or

institution or outstanding water-related

activities, is worth usd 150,000. Following

the ceremony, the Royal Banquet in the

City Hall oered guests the opportunity to

hear o Proessor Biswas’ “dreams” during

his acceptance speech. “I have a nal dream

that every one o the world’s citizens willlive in a water secure world within my lie-

time,” he said. “This is not an impossible

dream but an achievable dream. I we ail,

as Shakespeare has said in Julius Caesar

‘The ault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,

but in ourselves that we are underlings.’”

Among the many distinguished guests

to hear his wise words were those o the

Founders o the Stockholm Water Prize.

They include:

Anglian Water, Bacardi, DuPont,

Europeiska Insurance, Fujitsu Siemens

Computers, General Motors, Grundos

Management, Hewlett Packard, Hilton

and Scandic, ITT Flygt, Kaupthing

Bank Sverige, Kemira Kemwater, KPMG

Sweden, P&G, Ragn-Sells, Scandinavian

Airlines (SAS), Siemens AG, Snecma,

Stockholm Water Festival, Swedish

Railways (SJ), Uponor, and the Water

Environment Federation, in collaboration

with The City o Stockholm.



00 6 WO R LD W AT ER W E EK S Y NT H ES IS

The Stockholm Junior Water Prize

The Stockholm Junior Water Prize, presented August 22, was

the rst to be handed out during the week. In ront o 700

guests in the Stockholm City Conerence Centre, a Chinese

trio – Ms. Wang Hao, Mr. Xiao Yi and Mr. Weng Jie – were

awarded the prestigious youth prize.

The Stockholm Junior Water Prize is presented each year

to high-school age students or an outstanding water-related

project ocusing on topics o environmental, scientic, social or

technological importance.

In taking top place among 26 participating countries, theteam rom Shanghai Nanyang Model High School was recog-

nised or a project which “displayed originality, ingenuity and

tenacity in its use o low-cost, ecologically riendly technology

to restore a polluted urban river channel,” according to the

international nominating committee. They received the Prize

rom the hands o H.R.H. Crown Princess Victoria plus a

usd 5,000 scholarship and a crystal sculpture.

The winning project consisted o the students damming small

sections o the highly polluted Caoxi river channel and remov-

ing the contaminated mud which was exposed. Second, oxygen-

starved stretches o the river were revitalised through the use o foating aerators. Third, bushes and other bank-side plants were

careully ertilised with organic waste, irrigated and used as bio-

logical barriers to block polluted runo rom the land. Finally,

through a water quality monitoring program, illicit sewage dis-

charges were discovered, exposed and eliminated.

The committee called the project a “tried-and-true method

or river channel restoration which gives great hope or similar

successes with other streams in the 19-million person Shanghai

metropolitan area”.

Diplomas o Excellence were also given to Japan and Sri Lanka.

Ms. Satomi Kosho, Ms. Naomi Sugimoto and Ms. Sae Nishinorom Japan, who developed a portable nursery which adapted

the principles o the well-known Wardian Case or transporting

plants, created an innovative approach which both reduced the

amount o water needed to grow rice seedlings and improved their

quality. The Sri Lankans Ms. Mihirani Kethumalika, Ms. Uth-

pala Rathnayake and Ms. Chathurika Rathnayake challenged the

wasteul water practices oten ound in paddy rice cultivation.

The international competition, which is sponsored globally

by ITT Corporation, included a number o events in addition

to the award competition. Site visits, seminars and social events

provided the 60 young people, many o whom were making their rst international trip, with an experience to remember.

H.R.HCrownPrincessVictoriaoSwedenpresentedtheawardto(romlet)toMs.WangHao,Mr.XiaoYiandMr.WengJieduringtheceremony

attheStockholmCityConerenceCentre.

P h o t o : S I W I




The Stockholm Industry Water Award

Mrs. Gabrielle Kibble travelled some 21,700 kilometres rom

Sydney to Stockholm. For the Chair o Sydney Water, the mu-

nicipal water and wastewater supplier in the Australian me-

tropolis, it was worth it. Every day is not like August 23, 2006,

when your company is honoured with the Stockholm Industry

Water Award. It isn’t every municipa l water and wastewater

supplier that has helped the businesses and industries within its

connes save 20 million litres o water daily.

Sydney Water was recognised in Stockholm or its “Every

Drop Counts (EDC) Business Program”. The innovative pro-gramme demonstrates how the utility is working in partner-

ship with business, industry and government to help ensure the

long-term sustainability o Sydney’s water supply.

Sydney Water is the largest water utility in Australia, the dri-

est inhabited continent in the world, and supplies water to 4.2

million people and many businesses and industries. As part o

its operating license requirement, Sydney Water is required to

reduce per capita consumption by 35% during the period rom

1991 to 2011. The EDC Business Program is a water conser-

vation programme or the business, industry and government

sector, which represents around 30% o the total water use in

the Sydney region. The EDC Business Program addresses these

challenges by promoting water management as a business issue

rather than a technical issue.

In Stockholm, Ms. Kibble also had the opportunity to talk

about EDC during the business-oriented Founders Seminar.

The seminar theme, “Business on the Ground: When Solving

Local Community Water Issues Becomes Part o Doing Busi-

ness,” provided an opportunity to speak about how more than

310 organisations have joined the programme. The direct ben-

ets in terms o water conservation, Ms. Kibble said, are sig-nicant in and o themselves, even more so because they are

enhanced by the indirect benets o energy savings and reduced

wastewater fows.

The Stockholm Industry Water Award is presented by the

Stockholm Water Foundation. It honours innovative corporate

development o water and wastewater process technologies, con-

tributions to environmental improvement through improved

perormance in production processes, new products and other

signicant contributions by businesses and industries that help

improve the world water situation.

Fromlet:Mrs.GabrielleKibble,AO,Chair,SydneyWater,Mr.MohanSeneviratne,ProgramManager-Business,WaterConservation&Recycling,

SydneyWaterandMr.StigLarsson,Chair,StockholmWaterFoundation,attheStockholmIndustryWaterAwardCeremony.

P h o t o : S I W I




During the Closing Session o the World Water Week on Au-

gust 25, 2006, attendees witnessed the honouring o an excep-

tional example o personal philanthropy.

The 2006 Swedish Baltic Sea Water Award was presented to

Mr. Björn Carlson, a Swedish nancier, or his 2005 personal

donation o SEK 500 million (usd 62.6 million) or interdisci-

plinary projects and creative initiatives that support direct and

practical eorts which contribute to improved water quality in

the Baltic Sea. The unds are administered by the Björn Carl-

son Foundation or the Baltic Sea.Through this large donation, he wishes to encourage politi-

cians, authorities, companies, shing societies and other sectors

around the entire Baltic Sea to dare to try new methods and to

take unconventional measures in the work to improve the sea’s

marine environment.

The Swedish Baltic Sea Water Award

The Swedish Baltic Sea Water Award is a regional award or

water stewardship. The award is given by Sweden’s Ministry or

Foreign Aairs in appreciation or what individuals, corpora-

tions, non-governmental organisations and municipalities have

done to help improve the Baltic Sea’s water environment.

“Mr. Carlson’s donation is a truly outstanding example o

individual philanthropy in pursuit o a worthy cause,” said Dr.

Ulla-Britta Fallenius, chair o the Award Committee. “Like all

o us living around the Baltic Sea, he is disturbed and concerned

by the increasingly threatened health o this common naturalresource; unlike all o us, through such a generous donation he

has the ability to stimulate eorts to make concrete improve-

ments to the sea which benet us all living in the region.”

P h o t o

: S I W I

Fromlet:Mr.AndersBerntell,ExecutiveDirectoratSIWI,Mr.BjörnCarlson,recipientothe006SwedishBalticSeaWaterAward,andMs.Cecilia

Björner,MinistryorForeignAairs,Sweden.




Collaborating Organisations

• AndhraPradeshFarmerManagedGroundwaterSystemsProjecthttp://www.apamgs.org/

• Baltic1http://www.baltic1.org

• BangladeshUnnayanParishadhttp://www.bup-bd.org/

• BonnInternationalCentreorConversion(BICC)http://www.bicc.de/

• BusinessPartnershipsorDevelopmentinWaterandSanitation(BPDWS)http://www.bpd-waterandsanitation.org/

• Cap-Nethttp://www.cap-net.org/

• CentreorTransdisciplinaryEnvironmentalResearch(CTM,StocholmUniversity)http://www.ctm.su.se/

• CGIARChallengeProgramonWaterandFood(CPWF)http://www.waterorood.org/impact/

• CGIARComprehensiveAssessmentandChallengeProgrammehttp://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/assessment/

• ComisionNacionaldelAgua(CONAGUA)http://www.cna.gob.mx/eCNA/Espaniol/Directorio/Deault.aspx

• DeltHydraulicshttp://www.wldelt.nl/

• DHIWater&Environmenthttp://www.wldelt.nl/

• EastAricanCommunity(EAC)http://www.eac.int/

• TheEducationalActivityotheSobrietyMovementhttp://www.nbv.se• Euphrates-TigrisInitiativeorCooperation/KENTStateUniversity(ETIC)

http://www.eticorg.net/

• EuropeanCommission(EC)http://ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm

• EuropeanUnionWaterInitiative(EUWI)http://www.euwi.net/

• EveryRiverhasitsPeopleProject(ERP)http://www.euwi.net/

• ExpertGrouponDevelopmentIssues(EGDI),MinistryorForeignAairs,Swedenhttp://www.egdi.gov.se/

• FederalInstituteorGeosciencesandNaturalResources(BGR),Germanyhttp://www.bgr.bund.de/cln_0/DE/Home/homepage__node.html__nnn=true

• FoodandAgriculturalOrganization(FAO),Rome,Italyhttp://www.ao.org/

• FrenchWaterAcademy,InternationalSecretariatorWaterhttp://www.academie-eau.org/

• GenderandWaterAlliance(GWA)http://www.genderandwater.org/

• GlobalWaterPartnership(GWP)http://www.gwporum.org/

• GlobalWaterPartnership(GWP)–EasternandWesternArica

http://www.gwporum.org/• InternationalAssociationorHydrogeologists(IAH)http://www.iah.org/

• InternationalAssociationoHydraulicEngineeringandResearch(IAHR)

• InternationalAssociationoHydrologicalSciences(IAHS)http://www.iahr.net/site/index.html

• InternationalFederationoEnvironmentalJournalists(IFEJ)http://www.iej.org/

• InternationalHydropowerAssociation(IHA)http://www.hydropower.org/

• InternationalLakeEnvironmentCommittee(ILEC)http://www.ilec.or.jp/eg/index.html

• InternationalLivestockResearchInstitute(ILRI)http://www.ilri.cgiar.org/

• InternationalWaterandSanitationCentre(IRC)http://www.irc.nl/

• InternationalWaterAssociation(IWA)http://www.iwahq.org.uk/templates/ld_templates/layout_6166.aspx?ObjectId=6

• InternationalWaterManagementInstitute(IWMI)http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/

• InternationalWaterResourcesAssociation(IWRA)http://www.iwra.siu.edu/• JapanWaterForum(JWF)http://www.waterorum.jp/eng/

• King’sCollegeLondonhttp://www.iucn.org/

• LinköpingUniversityhttp://www.liu.se/

• LondonWaterResearchGroup

• MinistryoForeignAairs,Danida,Denmarkhttp://www.um.dk/en/

• MunichReFoundationhttp://www.munichre-oundation.org/StitungsWebsite/

• NetherlandsMinistryoForeignAairshttp://www.minbuza.nl/

• NoWNET(AustraliaWaterPartnership,DanishWaterForum,GlobalWaterPartnership,JapanWaterForum,KoreaWaterForum,NetherlandsWaterPartnership,SwedishWaterHouseandWorldWaterCouncil) http://www.northernwater.net/

• OkavangoDeltaManagementPlan(ODMP)http://www.ramsar.org/mtg/mtg_okavango_donors1.htm

• OkavangoRiverBasinWaterCommission(OKACOM)http://www.irbm.co.bw/

• OverseasDevelopmentInstitute(ODI)UKhttp://www.odi.org.uk/

• PakistanWaterPartnership(PWP)http://www.gwpsouthasia.org/

• PanAricanVisionortheEnvironment(PAVE)• PrinceSultanBinAbdulazizInternationalPrizeorWater,PrinceSultan

ResearchCenterorEnvironment,WaterandDesert,KingSaudUniversity,Riyadh,SaudiArabiahttp://www.psipw.org/index.htm

• PrinceSultanResearchCenterorEnvironment,WaterandDesert,KingSaudUniversityhttp://www.psipw.org/index.htm

• RambollNaturahttp://www.rambollnatura.se/homepage/index.shtml

• RamsarConventiononWetlandshttp://www.ramsar.org/index.html

• StakeholderForumoraSustainableFuturehttp://www.stakeholderorum.org/1index.php

• StockholmEnvironmentInstitute(SEI)http://www.sei.se/

• StockholmEnvironmentInstitute(SEI)–Asiahttp://www.sei.se/asia/index.html

• StockholmInternationalWaterInstitute(SIWI)http://www.siwi.org/

• StockholmWaterCompanyhttp://www.stockholmvatten.se/indexie.htm

• StockholmWaterFoundationhttp://www.siwi.org/

• StreamsoKnowledge

• SwedishAssociationorEnvironmentalJournalists(MOF)http://www.iejstockholm006.com/

• SwedishInternationalDevelopmentCooperationAgency(Sida)http://www.sida.se/

• SwedishSocietyorNatureConservation(SSNC)http://www.sn.se/

• SwedishWaterHouse(SWH)http://www.swedishwaterhouse.se/

• SwissFederalInstituteoAquaticScienceandTechnology(EAWAG)http://www.eawag.ch/index_EN

• TheComprehensiveAssessmentorWaterManagement(CA)inAgriculturehttp://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Assessment/index.htm

• TheFederalMinistryorEconomicCooperationandDevelopment,Germanyhttp://www.bmz.de/en/

• TheInternationalJointCommission(IJC)http://www.ijc.org/

• TheNatureConservancy(TNC)http://www.nature.org/

• TheUniversityoTokyohttp://www.u-tokyo.ac.jp/index_e.html

• TheWorldBankhttp://www.worldbank.org/

• TheWorldConservationUnion–IUCNhttp://www.iucn.org/

• TheWorldLieSciencesForum(BioVision)http://www.biovision.org/

• ThirdWorldCentreorWaterManagementhttp://www.thirdworldcentre.org/

• UNHabitathttp://www.unhabitat.org/

• UNTaskForceorGenderandWater–DivisionortheAdvancementoWomenhttp://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/

• UNDPHumanDevelopmentReportOce• UNEPCollaboratingCentreonWaterandEnvironment

http://www.ucc-water.org/

• UNEPDivisionotheGlobalEnvironmentalFacility(UNEPDGEF)http://dge.unep.org/

• UNEPGlobalProgrammeoActionortheProtectionotheMarineEnvironmentromLand-basedActivities(GPA)http://www.gpa.unep.org/bin/php/home/index.php

• UNESCOInternationalHydrologicalProgramme(UNESCO-IHP)http://www.unesco-ihe.org/vmp/articles/contentsHomePage.html

• UnitedNations–DepartmentoEconomicandSocialAairs(UNDESA)http://www.un.org/esa/desa/

• UnitedNationsChildren’sFund(UNICEF)http://www.unice.org/

• UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP)http://www.undp.org/

• UN-Waterhttp://www.unwater.org/fashindex.html

• VARIMhttp://www.varim.org/varim/deault.php

• WASTEAdvisersonUrbanEnvironmentandDevelopmenthttp://www.waste.nl/

• WaterandSanitationProgramme(WSP)http://www.wsp.org/• WaterandSanitationProgramme(WSP)–SouthAsia

• WaterEnvironmentFederation(WEF)http://www.we.org/Home

• WaterIntegrityNetwork(WIN)[InternationalWaterandSanitationCentre,StockholmInternationalWaterInstitute,SwedishWaterHouse,TransparencyInternationalandWaterandSanitationProgramme]http://www.waterintegritynetwork.net/

• WaterSupplyandSanitationCollaborativeCouncil(WSSCC)http://www.wsscc.org/

• WatershedMediaProjecthttp://www.watershedmedia.org/

• WetlandsInternationalhttp://www.wetlands.org/

• WorldAgroorestryCentre(ICRAF)http://www.worldagroorestry.org/

• WorldBusinessCouncilorSustainableDevelopment(WBCSD)http://www.wbcsd.ch/

• WorldHealthOrganization(WHO)http://www.who.int/en/

• WorldWaterCouncil(WWC)http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/

• WorldWaterInstitutehttp://www.worldwaterinstitute.org/

• WorldWideFundorNature(WWF),Swedenhttp://www.ww.se/



d e s i g n Q u a d r

a t a

Stockholm International

Water InstituteIndependent and Leading-Edge Water

Competence for Future-Oriented Action

The Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) is a policy

institute that contributes to international efforts to find solutions

to the world’s escalating water crisis. SIWI advocates future-ori-

ented, knowledge-integrated water views in decision making,

nationally and internationally, that lead to sustainable use of the

world’s water resources and sustainable development of societies.

www.siwi.org

World Water Week in StockholmBuilding Capacity – Promoting Partnership

– Reviewing Implementation

The World Water Week in Stockholm is the leading an-

nual global meeting place for capacity-building, partner-

ship-building and follow-up on the implementation of

international processes and programmes in water and de-

velopment. It includes topical plenary sessions and panel

debates, scientific workshops, independently organised

seminars and side events, exhibitions and festive prize cer-

emonies honouring excellence in the water field. Stock-holm: it’s the meeting place for experts from businesses,

governments, the water management and science sectors,

inter-governmental organisations, NGOS, research and

training institutions and United Nations agencies.

www.worldwaterweek.org

��

� � ��

Documents

World Water Week