Water

By Dr James Dalton, Coordinator, Global Initiatives, IUCN Water Programme.

I just came back from the International Hydropower Association (IHA) Congress in Kuching – the capital of the Malaysian State of Sarawak on Borneo. We wanted to see what progress had been made in the application of the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol (HSAP) following its launch at the last IHA Congress two years ago. Sarawak has a reputation for controversy around its dams – and I was not disappointed.

The first thing to understand is that dams are controversial. They bring huge energy benefits supplying around 17% of global energy demand, but cause massive disruption to river systems, riparian habitats, and to those that live in the river basins. They provide carbon ‘free’ (although not entirely) energy – and the energy they produce is often promoted as inexpensive. During construction they can provide many jobs and lucrative contracts, and consequently they are often used for political gain, and as a show of national pride and power.

Hydropower dams in Sarawak are a little different though – but maybe they are the shape of things to come? The Sarawak Government has developed something called the Sarawak Corridor for Renewable Energy – a growth corridor fuelled by up to 12 dams supplying energy for major industrial development in Sarawak. Setting aside the environmental impacts for now – who needs this amount of power? Sarawak already produces more energy than it needs – is the future going to see dams built to attract follow-on industrial investment – energy supply before the demand?

At the Congress the World Bank announced it was back with

By Dr James Dalton, Coordinator, Global Initiatives, IUCN Water Programme.

Corporate partnerships are big news nowadays – especially on water. The resource that many of them need or impact upon is fast becoming a focal point for discussions around sustainability.

Water footprinting, stewardship, and the ‘nexus’ issues – the complex way water flows through the energy and food/agriculture sectors are just some of the subjects of many networks, blogs, articles and platforms.

And here is another one! But hopefully with a difference. The IUCN Water Programme, in partnership with the Ramsar Secretariat and DANONE Waters recently held a workshop to review an internal water management tool developed by DANONE to help them manage the groundwater resources they bottle and sell – water which becomes iconic brands like Evian.

I’ll admit to being a little nervous on the first morning of the workshop – we had brought together a really diverse range of people. From water safety planners, water quality gurus, business sustainability thinkers, experts in finance, wetland ecology, corporate water stewardship, and biodiversity. They were members of IUCN Commissions, the Ramsar Scientific and Technical Review Panel, independent experts, colleagues, and contacts through networks. Would they find common points to discuss given the wide range of specialities in the room – had we got the balance of minds right? Would we all benefit from this exchange of experience?

My fears were allayed about two hours into the workshop. There were some strong viewpoints and perspectives in the room, but they were open to friendly and constructive discussion. Experience brings with it quicker, more decisive thinking, but good facilitation steered us to listen to the many different perspectives present. Everyone benefited from having Danone Waters experts in the room who were

By James Dalton, Coordinator, Global Initiatives, IUCN's Global Water Programme.

It has been over three years since we first sat down with CEMEX, the global building materials company headquartered in Monterrey, Mexico. It was one of those meetings where we were not sure what they wanted to talk about apart from the general subject of ‘water’. What were they interested in? What could we realistically work with them on jointly? After all, corporate interests come and go, sometimes very rapidly.

I can still clearly remember that meeting – and the realisation that we had many joint ideas and similar concerns about water resources and the role of their business in working towards better water management.
 
After three years of working in partnership with CEMEX I think we are in a much better position to understand their business concerns and to understand how we, working jointly with them, can find solutions to improve the efficiency of water use and to also help the company identify and reduce water risks. Risks both to the company to ensure they maintain access to water, but also to those other businesses, communities, AND the natural freshwater ecosystems downstream of quarries and cement works.

We pulled some of this learning together at the end of last year and presented it at our joint event at the Spanish Permanent Representation to the EU offices in Brussels. We jointly presented the methodology we have worked on to standardize water measurement and management across company operations, and also presented some of the more innovative approaches to water management between companies (see Sweet Cement article). It was a well-attended event with an excellent audience – they were well informed

By James Dalton of IUCN’s Global Water Programme.

I am an engineer. I like to see how and why things work the way they do, and like to focus on how to make things work better, including projects and programmes.

I was also taught and trained in science – but I struggle with it. I struggle with the need for science to be so exact and defining. I understand why it has to be so exact but often it does not articulate itself well. The relevance of science can be questioned because it often fails to make itself understood to the audience – or ‘stakeholders’ it is trying to inform and influence.

With this in mind I looked at the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) report, and its definition of ecosystem services as “the benefits people obtain from ecosystems”. In the report ecosystem services were ‘categorised’ into supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural ‘services’ – the benefits society receives from nature in the form of security, the basic materials for a good life, health, and good social relations.

The MEA Report contains a (now famous) diagram which tries to show the link between the different categories of ecosystem services, and the benefits society receives. On the left are the ecosystem service categories, and on the right, the benefits society receives collectively as ‘human well-being’. Between the services provided and human well being there are a series of coloured arrows to demonstrate that some services society can provide in different ways through our social organisation skills, or through paying for them.

This is important to show that when an ecosystem is degraded, we have to subsidise the services through investing, or at the extremes, moving populations! For me, the easiest example is how