Page added on March 22, 2013
How much water does it take to turn on a light? It took 10,000 litres to make your jeans. Another three big bathtubs of water was needed for your two-eggs-toast-coffee breakfast this morning.
Piped water has made life easier for this Laotian boy, who no longer has to help his parents fetch water from afar. Up to 1.7 billion people face scarcity. Credit: Vannaphone Sitthirath/IPS
We are surrounded by an unseen world of water: furniture, houses, cars, roads, buildings – practically everything we use and make needs water.
“There is no way to generate energy without water,” said Zafar Adeel, co-chair of the UN-Water Task Force on Water Security and director of the Institute for Water, Environment and Health in Canada.
Even solar panels need regular washing to perform well. Wind energy might be an exception, Adeel told IPS from a water conference in Beijing being held during World Water Week.
There is growing recognition that peak oil is nowhere near as important as peak water because there is no substitute for water. The growing shortage of water — 1.2 to 1.7 billion people face scarcity — has alarmed many. Water has been identified as an “urgent security issue”, by a group that last year included both former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the InterAction Council, an association of 37 former heads of state and government.
It’s important that “water security” be recognised by the U.N. Security Council as either as a trigger, a potential target, or a contributing factor to insecurity and potential conflict in many parts of the world, said Adeel.
Defining exactly what the term “water security” means has been challenging, but UN-Water, the United Nations’ inter-agency coordination mechanism for all water-related issues, now has a working definition.
They have defined water security as: “The capacity of a population to safeguard sustainable access to adequate quantities of and acceptable quality water for sustaining livelihoods, human well-being, and socio-economic development, for ensuring protection against water-borne pollution and water-related disasters, and for preserving ecosystems in a climate of peace and political stability.”
The definition was released Friday on World Water Day along with an analytical brief “Water Security and the Global Water Agenda“.
“Water fits within this broader definition of security — embracing political, health, economic, personal, food, energy, environmental and other concerns — and acts as a central link between them,”says Michel Jarraud, Chair of UN-Water and secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
It is important to note that conflicts over water are rare. “Historically there hasn’t been a war between nations over water,” said Harriet Bigas, a co-author of the brief and colleague of Adeel at the Institute for Water, Environment and Health.
Water issues do create friction between nations and have led to local internal conflicts, she said in an interview.
Driven largely by water and food shortages linked to drought in the Horn of Africa, almost 185,000 Somalis fled to neighbouring countries in 2011. In Sudan, violence broke out in March 2012 in the Jamam refugee camp where large numbers of people faced serious water scarcity. And in South Sudan, entire communities were forced to leave due to scarce water resources as a result of conflict in 2012.
Water insecurity can lead to cascading political, social, economic and environmental consequences, she said.
However, the norm is for nations and regional partners to work out water-sharing agreements, offering important opportunities for dialogue amongst traditional enemies.
“Water is a greater pathway to peace than conflict,” writes noted international water expert Aaron Wolf of Oregon State University.
Even when nations are at war, they negotiate water-sharing agreements, Wolf says. Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos continued the successful Mekong Committee to manage the Mekong River even during the Vietnam war.
In 2010 Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina signed an agreement to share the management of the Guaraní Aquifer, which extends over more than one million sq km. A population of 15 million today relies on the aquifer because surface water, though abundant, is often polluted, the UN-Water brief noted.
There’s also rising international support for adopting “universal water security” as one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) — a set of mid-term global objectives to succeed the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals, agreed by world leaders in 2000 for achievement by 2015.
“Water encompasses all aspects of development. We’re hopeful water security will be one of the main SDGs,” said Adeel.
Water, food and energy are sides of the same triangle – shrink one side and it affects the other two, he said.
An SDG for water security should include targets and indicators that reflect this. It needs to specific to various countries’ needs and indicate what resources will be needed to achieve water security. “It’s important to explicit state how each country can get there.”
The draft SDGs will be presented at the opening of the U.N. General Assembly this September.
The biggest challenge in achieving universal water security is not money or technology but human institutions, said Bigas. Simply getting government departments in the same country to coordinate on water issues is “an enormous challenge”.
9 Comments on "Water Crisis Hitting Food, Energy – And Everything Else"
catering on Fri, 22nd Mar 2013 6:42 pm
🙁 this is heartbreaking..
Kenz300 on Fri, 22nd Mar 2013 6:46 pm
Countries are not very good at big picture planning.
Every country needs to develop a plan to balance their population with their resources, food, WATER, energy and jobs.
We all need to begin to think about what a sustainable future is in a resource constrained world.
GregT on Fri, 22nd Mar 2013 7:30 pm
Kenz,
How do you propose that governments control population growth? Forced sterilization? Mandatory abortions? A cull of people over a certain age? Do you really believe that somebody should have the right to tell somebody else whether they can have children or not? Is this the kind of “government” that you would want to live under? I mean seriously man, think about what you are saying.
As long as there are surpluses in resources, the population will continue to grow. It’s what people do, we procreate.
The population problem will be taken care of naturally. Once resource limits are met, the population will be adjusted accordingly, through war, drought, famine, and disease.
Kenz300 on Fri, 22nd Mar 2013 8:41 pm
Access to family planning services need to be available to all that want it.
Most people are smart enough to realize that if they can not provide for themselves they can not provide for a child.
Oldmusher on Fri, 22nd Mar 2013 10:51 pm
“The population problem will be taken care of naturally. Once resource limits are met, the population will be adjusted accordingly, through war, drought, famine, and disease,” ‘GregT.
And that is preferable to birth control?? Birth control through voluntary means should be available to all people. The greatest need is to inform and educate people as to safe and effective means of gaining control over births.
GregT on Sat, 23rd Mar 2013 2:09 am
It actually works the opposite way. People that cannot provide usually end up with bigger families, while those that are well educated tend to have less children.
BillT on Sat, 23rd Mar 2013 3:31 am
GregT, Kenz is stuck in a loop where he cannot see how much humans are just animals with higher destructive capabilities. We won’t self limit our species. Never have. Never will.
Even our religions preach big families, because they don’t allow family planning/condoms/female education. Think Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, etc. ALL preach big families as a responsibility of their members. (More members, more power and income for the churches.)
Most governments want higher populations for the same reasons. Power and income. But we have hit the natural limits and now we have no idea how to overcome that obstacle to growth. Or, we do, but it is not palatable to most of us. We will die back from disease, starvation, pests, and war. same as always, only this time, we may not bounce back.
Feemer on Sat, 23rd Mar 2013 11:25 pm
BillT and GregT are right, nature will sort us out if we don’t, although a massive die off will likely happen, it would be preferable to have a fascist government that does regulate population and resources, and limit all this excess waste. It comes down to a fascist world government, or we vaporize each other with nukes and destroy the environment with ourselves, leaving no chance for any life afterwards.
GregT on Sat, 23rd Mar 2013 11:34 pm
Oldmusher,
I never said that it was preferable, I was only stating the reality of the situation. We are already in population “overshoot” by the tune of some 6 billion people. It is far too late for birth control to keep the population at a sustainable level.
The earth’s natural balance will eventually be met, and there is nothing that we can do to stop it. We are not above nature, and we are subject to it’s laws, like all living things.