Our relationship with water is not only positive. It can be our best friend, but also our worst enemy. Diverse, often contradicting cultural and philosophical perspectives on water reflect these ‘mixed feelings’. While oriental philosophy and religion (Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism) and the beliefs of most indigenous peoples emphasise respect for water and consider that water teaches us modesty, occidental thinking focuses on the need to control water. Technology has been developed to increase our control over water and has resulted in impressive infrastructure, such as hydropower dams, large scale irrigation schemes, water defence infrastructure and canals.

However, notwithstanding its successes, criticism and evidence of failure of this ‘control thinking’ approach are growing. In the past century it has become clear that water is not a renewable resource, but rather a finite source of life that cannot be fully controlled. In fact, it can be easily destroyed by contamination, over fishing, over extraction, and by modifying water flows, to name a few. This resulted in growing awareness that water cannot and should not always be controlled. Furthermore, based on the fact that the most successful examples of equitable water management happen when water is considered as common property, economic control of water through privatisation and public-private partnerships is being more frequently challenged.

Beyond control

Because of these insights, at a local, national and global level, politics and practices related to water management are changing. The failure of water privatisation in several countries has led to the so called ‘remunicipalisation’ of water services in countries such as Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Tanzania, Mali, France, Indonesia, Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. At a global level, in 2010 the General Assembly of the United Nations recognised that the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation is a human right essential for the full enjoyment of life and all other human rights.

Mega hydro infrastructure and water-contaminating agriculture and industry are no longer considered the most enlightening features of modern civilisation. New trends such as resilience theory and practice are becoming mainstream. The importance of social cohesion and the approach to water as a human right are receiving more attention in academic and political arenas.

More specifically, water related development projects evolve from mere infrastructural works towards integrated projects with more attention to participatory planning, water justice and sustainability. In the Netherlands, which lies for a large part below sea level, policy changed from the construction of very expensive zero risk dykes towards the promotion of resilience to floods by recovering traditional flood plains and riparian zones. In countries such as the United States and Spain, dams and water reservoirs have been demolished in order to restore original river flows. In many places water contamination has been reduced thanks to water treatment, waste regulations for industry and integrated (transboundary) watershed management, for example in the Rhine Watershed that spans nine European countries.

In India, China and several sub-Saharan countries, such as Ethiopia, water storage landscapes have been regenerated and water resources replenished successfully. In South America, asPhoto: Maria Carolina Feito, the transformation of several conflicts around water control yielded positive results for the users and policy changes at the national level.

Threats

But we should not turn a blind eye to the worrying processes and actors that still aim to control water without consideration for environmental and social impacts. In general, contamination and water depletion caused by urbanisation, mining and agribusiness are still increasing. And we continue to see the construction of large scale hydropower dams in Asia, Africa and Latin America; damaging fragile areas such as the Amazon Region.

Occupation and ‘grabbing’ of agricultural lands can be seen in most parts of the world. Land is under increased pressure due to indifferent public policies that facilitate control by large farmers and other private actors. Their preference is to grow capital and water intensive crops such as sugarcane which further deplete groundwater levels and contribute to increased rural out-migration of family farmers.

Moreover, the dominant perception that water should be privatised, in line with the myth that public institutions cannot be run efficiently or sustainably, prevails. In August 2015, it emerged that the debt agreement between the European Union and Greece requires that Greece privatise two large public water companies.

Water and agroecological practice

This issue of Farming Matters offers alternatives to ‘control thinking’ on water. The articles show that water plays a key role in agroecology, often unpredictable, sometimes devastating, but always as a ‘soft power’ giving life to agriculture. The major challenge is to construct a new relationship between human beings and water, instead of trying to understand and manage all its possible behaviours.

The examples documented here show that such a new relationship takes into account diversity, complementarities and uncertainty, and starts from the grassroots level with tailor made approaches; avoiding the disastrous impacts of many top-down large scale projects that were implemented in the past.

Examples from Africa and Asia show that communities are not passive and their culture, experience and environment shapes their coping mechanisms. There is an increasing need for public policies that allow family farmers to live a dignified life in their semi-arid environment. And, when farmers are given the space to innovate and build on local wisdom, effective negotiation and collaboration between farming communities, civil society, academics, and state institutions may occur. Likewise, over the past decades considerable experience has been gained in integrated and participatory watershed management in semi-arid regions.

In regions with water ‘abundance’ or where ‘water is born’, greed and competition make water more scarce for some than for others. Exploitation of water as a mere economic resource creates artificial scarcity. Therefore, in such landscapes the struggles for so called ‘water justice’ are a challenge too. Both Latin American stories in this issue provide a perspective on this. Water need not to be scarce if managed fairly and wisely.

The wisdom of water

There is great danger in considering water as only an economic resource. Instead, the articles presented here embrace the complexity of water, its multi-functionality, and its behaviour. In this way, we can learn a lot from ‘the wisdom of water’.

In 2014, the International Year of Family Farming emphasised and demonstrated how family farming and agroecology can improve agrarian policy and practice. The articles in this magazine reveal that family farming is one of the keys to better water management, and that there is a two-way relationship between farmers and water: water influences farmers’ decisions and farmers’ decisions impact water quality and quantity.

2015 Is the Year of Soils. Water and soil cannot be separated. Current thinking is re-evaluating the origin of both occidental and oriental philosophy that considered the four elements, soil, water, air and fire, as the basis of everything. Worldwide, traditional knowledge and spiritual practices do not hamper but rather give additional value to current water management and agroecology. Today’s challenges of climate change, food production and increasing urban demand for water need to be addressed through this sense of complexity, interrelationship, and respect for water, which require that current power imbalances in water management and use are turned around.

ILEIA team

The post Editorial – Agroecology: living wisely with water appeared first on Ileia.

In August 2015, I spoke at the Lagos Water Summit. As part of a social movement process for strong, democratically controlled water systems across Africa and around the world, the Summit provided a platform for sharing activists’ struggles against corporate control of water in places ranging from the Philippines, Indonesia to Ghana. I will share snippets of what I said at the summit.

Water is an essential right, without which no other right can be enjoyed. This is because water is the basis of life and of living in dignity. But today this is the most violated of the human rights. Let me explain.

Policy frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) emphasise access to water rather than the right to water. But in a situation where water supply has become a business and not a public good, it is clear that the private sector will determine who has access to water and at what cost. Public-private partnerships in water supply have boiled down to access for those that can afford the water rather than water as a right for all.

By 2025 all African countries will be vulnerable with regards to water supply. With climate change, increased flooding, droughts and desertification, the hope of securing ample fresh water supply continues to recede. Lake Chad used to be one of Africa’s largest lakes, but has diminished to less than 10 % of what it was in 1960. Fisher folks and pastoralists who depended on it for their livelihoods have been displaced.

In Europe the average person gets as much as 200-300 litres a day for domestic use, while in countries like Mozambique it is a mere 10 litres. Our reality across Africa is one of a punishing daily search for water of dubious quality, especially by women and children. Our nations groan from the pains of lack of clean water.

What to do? First, agroecological and traditional knowledge on water management must be valued and supported. Second, the water sources our peoples depend on must not be treated as dumpsites for toxic waste. And the privatisation of water in any form must be rejected. In several countries the public sector has successfully provided water through public-public partnerships. Governments should analyse and learn from these to distil best practices.

Water is nature’s gift to the Earth. Attempts to deny anyone the right to water is an inexcusable disconnect from nature. When governments realise that a healthy population living in dignity is the best form of security, no expense will be spared to secure the enjoyment of the right to water by everyone.

Nnimmo Bassey

Nnimmo Bassey is a Nigerian environmental activist, author and poet who chaired Friends of the Earth International from 2008 to 2012 and was director of Environmental Rights Action Nigeria for two decades. He is currently the director of the Health of Mother Earth Foundation.
Email: nnimmo@homef.org

The post Opinion: Our water, our right appeared first on Ileia.

At the heart of how New York City’s public water supplier has preserved a pristine water supply to its nine million customers – described as ‘the champagne of public water’ by its fans – is a story of urban–rural collaboration. Upstate dairy farmers – over 100 miles away from the giant metropolis – have become watershed guardians, working hand-in-hand with their thirsty urban neighbours. How did this unusually cooperative partnership develop? More often than not, the relationship between cities and farmers is an unhappy colonial one.

Beginning in the 1830s, with the urban population exploding, New York City leaders reached north and west to find rural environments that could provide pure, affordable water. They created a series of reservoirs and built an engineering marvel – a concrete pipe a Volkswagen can drive through, surging with millions of gallons of water per second by gravity alone. The water system was the envy of cities throughout the world that struggled with diseases like cholera and dirty, scarce water.

By the 20th century, the sources were no longer so pristine. As industrialised agriculture began to undermine the economic vitality of the small family farms, the landscape changed. The upstream Catskill farmers, seeking desperately to remain economically viable, began industrialising their own farm operations. Nutrient use increased, dairy herds concentrated, erosion accelerated, and pathogens showed up in New York City’s water supply. City dwellers populated suburbs and second homes in the watershed and farmers sold off forested lots that had previously served as crucial natural filters.

By the end of the 1980s, public health specialists and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that the city would need to increase treatment of its drinking water and regulators began to apply pressure. Until then, the source water quality had been so good that treatment had been relatively light. The costs for new treatment facilities were estimated to be over $US4 billion to build and $US200 million annually to operate, which would double the cost of water in New York City. The impacts on low-income families would be harsh.

From ‘grey’ to ‘green’ infrastructure

Management transitions are an opportune moment to initiate change. When then Mayor David Dinkins appointed Al Appleton as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection and Director of the New York City Water and Sewer system in early 1990, Commissioner Appleton stood at an interesting crossroads. He could deliver the bad news to an economically-strapped city administration that new ‘grey’ or ‘built’ infrastructure was needed to treat the water. Or he could propose a greener alternative – restoring the ecosystems to their natural filtration capability – knowing that it meant swimming against the current. That is, the American water industry and its regulators were dominated by a built environment engineering mentality to solve water quality problems. Appleton was different; his background was in management reform, public finance and environmental policy, in particular, land use.

Appleton’s team judged that it made little sense to allow Catskill drinking water purity to continue to deteriorate while making costly investments to meet the EPA’s water quality standards. In few words, the team’s guiding philosophy was: A good environment will produce good water. Three steps logically followed:

1. identify pollution points;
2. convince politicians, regulators and engineers that less expensive ‘green infrastructure’ was a smart and profitable investment for New York City and;
3. enforce existing environmental regulations.

From regulation to cooperation

Because over two thirds of the land in the watershed was held privately, the City could not win the battle against contaminants by fencing off public lands. The city organised strict regulatory enforcement against non-point source pollution runoff from private farms. Field researchers discovered that a primary culprit was cattle excrement flowing freely into creeks. The city sanctioned them. This ‘big stick’ approach towards environmental protection angered some farmers and rural landowners. They resented the city for undermining their livelihoods without consultation. In a series of heated kitchen and community meetings, Appleton and his team took a pummeling and simply listened. To farmers struggling to remain afloat, water quality regulation is top-down imposition by urbanites who don’t understand the rural economy. His team returned to the drawing board.

Appleton and his team sought out the New York State Department of Agriculture, which proposed a slower process of co-design. Farmer associations in the watershed were strong and the Department of Agriculture encouraged the city to work cooperatively with farmers rather than against them. From a clash of positions, the case became an example of interest-based bargaining. The city’s interests were affordable, clean water. The farmers’ interests were sustainable, rural-based livelihoods. The negotiating task was to find the common ground.

If you don’t want the city on your back, Appleton said to the farmers, design a programme that meets both your needs and ours. We don’t want to run a regulatory agency; we want clean water. If your programme can acheive that, we’ll embrace it. It took 18 months of back and forth, often tense, negotiation between the city and the Catskill farming community but, in the end an innovative and far-reaching agreement was crafted.

Watershed friendly farming

With the city’s support, the Catskill farmers formed the Watershed Agricultural Council and created a programme called ‘Whole Farm Planning’, which incorporates environmental stewardship into each farm’s management strategy. ‘Whole Farm’ farmers subscribe to a set of best management principles to mitigate pollution. Rather than a one size fits all approach mandating specific practices, a pollution control plan was developed for each participating farm, by the farmer and with technical support from agricultural experts from agencies such as the United States Department of Agriculture. Importantly, these plans often lightened laborious tasks like collecting cow manure and therefore helped the farm become more profitable. Pollution mitigation measures would be 100 % paid for by the New York City water authority – largely through urban consumers’ water bills.

There were still significant hurdles. The farm community insisted that farmer participation be voluntary – a tough pill for the City to swallow. Could a voluntary programme deliver clean water? The city ultimately relented on the condition of a critical mass of participation. No individual farmer would be required to participate, but the Watershed Agricultural Council would guarantee that 85 % of all watershed farmers joined within five years. If they failed, participation would become mandatory or penalties would be levied. A further sticking point was whether the farmers would be subject to water quality regulatory enforcement. The city agreed that farmers participating in the programme in good faith would be exempt, barring flagrant and excessive violations. After five years, 93 % of all Catskill farmers enrolled, with spectacular results:

• 75 to 80 % reduction in farm pollution loading.
• The pristine quality of the city’s drinking water was restored without spending billions on advanced water treatment.
• The clean water was generated at an affordable price.

The programme more than paid for itself through cost savings and helped stabilise water and sewer rates, which, benefited low-income households.
The fact that watershed conservation would be folded into consumers’ bills created a sustainable pool of conservation financing, far more stable than many of today’s popular NGO-led watershed funds.

The programme proved popular with the public – and undoubtedly with the flora and fauna as well. It helped shore up urbanites’ support for additional watershed protection strategies, such as restoration of stream corridors and purchase and stewardship of city and state owned lands. Some of these forests and reservoirs have been opened to recreational use. The Watershed Agricultural Council launched a line of farm products under the label Pure Catskills, bringing urban consumers closer to rural growers. There are a range of products, some conventional and some organic; including grass-fed beef, vegetables and timber. All products must be grown in ways consistent with a healthy watershed. Concern for the watershed health has become so great that in 2014 the New York legislature banned fracking in the watershed, due in no small part to vocal urban water consumers protecting their water supply.

On a broader scale, the Catskill programme has inspired watershed protection and environmentally-friendly farm programmes throughout the world. It catalysed interest in non-traditional conservation strategies by the US water industry, including investments in ‘green’ rather than, or in addition to, ‘grey’ built infrastructure. This case is a much-cited model of environmental or ecosystem service payment programmes, which have become wildly in vogue the world over. Ironically, the core feature of New York’s success is often lost in the design of programmes that have followed. That is, many current programmes pay farmers on an annual per hectare basis to set sensitive land aside for forests. This approach can be fragile for two reasons:

it creates a certain tension between food production and conservation, especially when farms are small;
it is often funded by NGOs seeking voluntary contributions and is vulnerable to budget shortfalls and programme interruptions.

Success factors

While the New York programme offered conservation easements (both payments and tax incentives) to farmers, the real practical and philosophical innovation in New York was not turning farmers into conservationists but rather helping them do what they know and what they do best – grow food and fibre. New York City needed a healthy working landscape. While environmental sustainability was required to meet New York’s water quality needs, the measures did not undercut the farms’ profitability.

The programme is not a temporary fix. Support to upstate farmers, via the Watershed Agricultural Council is a core item in the New York City water system’s annual budget. According to Al Appleton, the programme captures, “the environmental profits from the services rural ecosystems provide urban areas and then funnels those profits back into the rural landscapes and the rural communities that provide them, creating a righteous cycle of mutually supportive economic and ecological investments between urban and rural areas, leading to a more sustainable future for both.” The programme demonstrates that water utilities can go beyond applying traditional engineering solutions and pioneer innovative governance, management and financial arrangements with upstream communities. The farmer-led Watershed Agricultural Council decides how to spend funds; the New York City water authority forms part of the board of directors, but with only one vote is much in the minority.

The relevance of a whole farm payment for environmental services programme for global water supplies and rural landscapes cannot be overstated. 100,000 people a day now migrate to cities, many with insecure water systems. Rural landscapes are being transformed faster than at any time in history. Programmes like New York’s can stabilise rural land use and stewardship by strengthening urban support for farmers producing environmentally-friendly food and fibre. In addition, the New York City example offers lessons about resiliency in the age of climate change. Its water supply and watersheds were not compromised during Superstorm Sandy – a class four hurricane.

Beyond New York

Across the world, water operators, municipal governments, NGOs and rural communities have taken keen interest in the New York City example, despite obvious contextual differences and challenges in its adaptation. In the global south, water rates alone are unlikely to cover the full cost of a watershed recovery programme – the majority of water consumers are low income and cannot afford a rate increase. Weakened by relentless public spending cutbacks, public water utilities tend to be cash-strapped, often unable to even build proper sewage treatment facilities. Ministries of agriculture, forestry, mines and energy and public health, among others, are likewise financially challenged and reluctant to share costs of watershed restoration.

Likewise, the political challenges to overcome fragmentation and contradiction among water and land use laws, jurisdictions and public programmes are formidable. Environmental NGOs will need to partner with government agencies to strengthen their capacity to steer water and land use planning. Development banks will need to provide low-interest financing for green infrastructure. Despite the difficulties the spirit of innovation is high. At a recent congress of the Association of Latin American Water and Sanitation Operators, the New York case – alongside Latin American examples – provided fertile ground for rich debate.

Those examples included Bogotá and Quito, public water systems which have purchased and preserved sensitive lands high in the Andes where the cities’ water is sourced. Quito is home to a widely-admired watershed restoration trust fund, capitalised primarily through annual contributions from the municipal water utility, with private contributions as well. Lima has a small watershed fund, funded privately, whose resources are no match for the damage caused by the pollution from the booming upstream mining industry.

Public water utilities aren’t in the business of cleaning up watersheds and most prefer to steer clear of upstream problems and chemically treat compromised water. Those that become involved know that they can’t solve the problems alone. Tactics vary; Des Moines, Iowa’s municipal water utility recently sued upstream farmers alleging excessive fertilizer run-off increased water treatment costs unsustainably. There is much learning underway. The UN Habitat-affiliated Water Operators Partnership for Latin America and the Caribbean supports a learning community among its affiliates interested in collaborating with upstream rural communities for watershed restoration. The American Water Works Association’s Source Water Collaborative is an important reference point.

The optimistic view is that better practices will follow instructive examples. The New York case demonstrates that an integrated form of urban and rural planning can bring environmental and economic benefits to both landscapes. Those links are growing stronger within movements for local and agroecological food systems. The bumper sticker, ‘No Farmers, No Food’ speaks to urban–rural interdependence and cooperation. In fact, the relationship runs deeper, right down into the aquifer. Healthy farming produces healthy water. Here’s a modified message to consider: no farmers, no water.

Daniel Moss

Daniel Moss has worked in community-based resource management in the US and Latin America for 30 years. He writes on water issues for journals and blogs and coordinates Our Water Commons. He recently published, ‘Urban Water Utilities and Upstream Communities Working Together’.
Email: danielmoss9@gmail.com

The post Farming for healthy urban tap water appeared first on Ileia.

Before I ever made the half-day hike from San Isidro up to the páramo, I heard about it almost every day. People told me about its beauty, lakes, and the hot springs. Deep valleys, rivers and 4500 m peaks. Its stories, the cold climes and dramatic views, the struggles to own it and to protect it. In Ecuador’s central Andes, the indigenous community of San Isidro collectively owns 1060 ha of this high-altitude moorland, typified by rugged peaks and straw-like grasses (paja).

This shared project has become a central focus of communal life

The area is known by its Kichwa name, Chaupi Urco Chilca Tingo. It is a place where collective action has intensified in scope and scale since the completion in 2010 of the community’s irrigation pipeline, which sources water there from two small rivers.

With a population of around 500 people, the majority of households in San Isidro rely on small scale agriculture (growing many varieties of maize, beans, root and leafy vegetables) in combination with wage labour. San Isidro is distinct in the local area for the number of residents who travel regularly to and from the Amazon region for shift work in the oil industry. This work has become increasingly precarious, and has further driven interest in communal projects that seek to meet community needs.

Collective action

Collective organising in San Isidro, as in many other indigenous communities across the Ecuadorian highlands, is structured with a directiva or community council elected every two years by all residents. Led by a president and vice-president, ultimate authority rests with the ‘assembly’ of community members whose agreement is required to support any major decision. Since the 1960s, this structured approach to collective decision-making has enabled San Isidro to engage in alliances with nearby communities, and to operate within a recognised branch of the national indigenous movement.

In the last decade alone, these networks have successfully fought campaigns against local plantations for more equitable access to water, countering land grabs that have sought to buy collectively held land without full communal agreement, and pressing for tighter control of the use of agrochemicals within industrial agriculture. Though active for many decades, after national indigenous uprisings in the 1990s and a strengthening indigenous movement since, collective action in San Isidro has gathered pace and achievements in recent years – registering as a community in 2009, and capitalising on constitutional rights attached to Buen Vivir (Harmonious Living) introduced in 2008.

In partnership with the nearby community of Yacubamba, who share the water from the pipeline, the 2009 directiva of San Isidro successfully applied for funding from the National Institute for Irrigation (INAR). The application was successful because it detailed clear plans for how future maintenance work would be undertaken and shared between the communities.

Don Jorge Llumiquinga, from San Isidro, brought his previous experience from other pipelines in the region to the application. Moreover, they applied at a time when government social spending had increased. The INAR grant covered building material costs for the irrigation pipeline. It also covered initial construction labour costs; although a small team of paid workers was supported by scores of volunteers for the six month project. And, under the collaborative agreements in place, ongoing maintenance work is shared equally among the 80-90 participating households.

The páramo: a water-storing ecosystem
 
The páramo ecosystem spread across the northern Andes is of great importance locally and globally – a vital source of water and part of functioning hydrological cycles, and also a carbon sink critical in regulating broader climate patterns.
 
In Ecuador, the páramo hills are known to form part of a ‘waterstoring ecosystem,’ an indirect source of water for the majority of urban and rural populations across the country, especially in the sierra regions. They are said to function almost like a giant ‘sponge’ absorbing rainfall, storing it, and releasing water gradually.
 
Páramo lands can produce one litre of water per day per square metre and, in Ecuador, 85% of water sources used for drinking water, for hydroelectric power systems, and for agricultural irrigation originate in the páramo. Increasing competitive interest in these resources has seen timber companies trying to purchase communal páramo lands to establish plantations of trees that consume a lot of water, such as pine or eucalyptus.

New possibilities

This shared infrastructure project has become a central focus of communal life, and has transformed possibilities for family farming in the semi-arid soils of San Isidro. Irrigation has made agriculture much more reliable and viable. Before the pipeline was built, access to water for farming was limited by historical water rights and agreements that favoured large landholdings.

One farmer, Sra Rosa, experienced this acutely: “We used to get water by the minute – it wasn’t just the hacienda estate taking most of the days each week, but by the time our quota was divided up between all of us in the community, we’d have only minutes at a time. The place was very dry. Now, we can grow much more, even alfalfa for our guinea pigs.”

San Isidro has suffered from increasingly erratic patterns of seasonal rainfall and even in ‘wet’ growing seasons crops were struggling. The pipeline provides a constant flow of 25 litres per second, which is distributed among member households. This has counteracted a steady ‘desertification’ of fields, and enables farmers to increase production. For example, Raúl Allauca now grows irrigated crops on his family’s steep plot. After the pipeline was completed his family built an extensive system of terraces. They have reduced their dependence on food purchased outside and increased their income from farming.

Self-sustaining systems of production and cooperation are more important than ever

As well as cultivating fodder for an increased number of small meat animals in most households, irrigation has also supported a community food cooperative, and enabled more farmers to regularly sell produce at their nearest weekly regional market in Pujili.

The cooperative ‘Food Circle’ involves weekly meetings where farmers, usually women, trade their ‘surplus’ produce amongst each other. Though fewer than half the community’s households have been active in the ‘circle’ and the quantities traded are insufficient to supply a livable income, there are other benefits. It has encouraged the production of previously neglected crops (e.g. Andean tubers such as ocas and mashua), and thus, care for and use of the páramo have helped reinforce locally appropriate farming practices and food landscapes.

Protecting the páramo

Páramo conservation is now another focus of collective action in San Isidro, alongside ongoing campaigns for land rights, water justice and environmental protection.

In 2009, community organiser, Porfirio Allauca, worked with the directiva and a development NGO on a project to bring alpacas back to the páramo. He described this land as a source of life – not just for San Isidro, but for society as a whole, since the páramo is ‘where water is born’. This project coincided with growing interest in páramo conservation within the development sector and with other NGO-funded projects in and around San Isidro.

Ecuador, however, has seen the closure of a number of regional NGO offices, particularly in the highlands. This goes to show that long-term and self-sustaining systems of production and cooperation like those found in San Isidro are more important than ever.

The páramo is also a site of significant historical importance. During land reform in the 1960s and 1970s, designed to support indigenous and rural communities through land redistribution, large estate owners were able to ‘redistribute’ land that they used and valued least. This included the páramo. As Porfirio put it: “at that time they handed over those lands like they were redundant or worthless.” He described it as a kind of ‘justice’ that today the páramo is recognised as a ‘source of life’, bringing new resolve and vitality to the community.

The importance of the páramo in San Isidro is reflected in many aspects of life: in the work that its conservation requires, in the produce that its waters help to grow, and also in the social fabric of San Isidro. Alongside the household and community labour and ongoing indigenous struggle, commemorative celebrations are held in the páramo, remembering the landscape as symbolic of solidarity. To mark the inauguration of the pipeline, a plaque was laid near its source in the high páramo. Thanking recent ancestors for their efforts in acquiring this land, the plaque states the páramo’s role as both site and source of communal action. Its words express hope for the future of San Isidro, and of the páramo as a whole: “this páramo, wellspring of life that we will look after forever and ever.”

Tristan Partridge

Tristan Partridge is a researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara with a focus on environmental justice, extraction and the food-energy-water nexus. He has worked with rural activist groups in India, South America and Scotland.
Email: tristan.partridge@ucsb.edu

The post The páramo, where water is born appeared first on Ileia.

This is the 21st century of exploitation, pollution and encroachment of water resources. Meeting challenges has always been a huge part of my life. When I went to Alwar, this semi-arid area was unhealthy and impoverished. The aquifers were completely dry. We started conserving the rainwater so that it wouldn’t evaporate or flow away and be wasted.

Using traditional wisdom we built johads (small dams) to recharge the underground aquifers. And because of that wisdom and those efforts, the area became fertile, prosperous and dead rivers came to life again. And those who had abandoned their villages came back again. The unique part of the whole process was the active community participation, which gives the community a sense of ownership over the assets they have created.

What now?

World peace is only possible when everyone gets clean and pure drinking water. Water resource conservation and management will continue to be a climate change adaptation strategy for people living with rainfall variability, both for domestic supply and to enhance crop, livestock and other forms of agriculture.

Decreasing water poverty by increasing water productivity will be key for the coming era. Demand-side control of water resources is urgent for sustainable supply-side management.

We are launching World Water Walks along the rivers and lakes of five continents over the next five years. The walks aim to connect local communities to their water and secure their water rights. Walk themes and ‘outdoor classrooms’ will provide the opportunity to ask questions and to understand the complexity around water issues.

Can reviving the flow of water in landscapes reduce the inequalities that face the world and ensure a more peaceful era for the planet? Do world spiritual traditions and the importance of water in them have a resonance and some teachings for us in this modern age? And, what can we learn from local communities which have enjoyed a symbiotic relationship with the environment for millennia?

Water resource conservation will continue to be a climate change adaptation strategy

The first of a series of walks was from Holy Island of Lindisfarne to Belford in the UK. The walkers, local community members, politicians and church leaders as well as an international contingent, participated in a powerful discussion on water and climate change.

Walks are already scheduled in Sweden, the USA and Germany and by 2016 water walks in all participating countries will be organised.

Rajendra Singh

Rajendra Singh is the chairman of Tarun Bharat Sangh, an organisation working for holistic development of all, regardless of economic situation, caste or religion in India. He also heads a national network of organisations working on water issues, Rashtriya Jal Biradari, working for restoration of all mighty and small rivers of India.
Email: jalpurushtbs@gmail.com

The post From water wars to world peace appeared first on Ileia.

Nepal: Community participation

The community of Rajha village in Gulmi district has incrementally improved water management with a combination of technology and good governance. They were oscillating from times of water excess in summer to scarcity for up to eight months each year. Limited drinking water prompted initial action in 2007 when a few community members started harvesting rainwater from their roofs. Next the community took steps to improve their livelihoods and water remained their focus.

In 2009, 35 people started the Nava Durga Agricultural Cooperative. With some financial support they built a 600,000 litre rainwater storage tank, enabling 34 members of the newly formed ‘water users group’ to grow vegetables during the dry season and some to rear cattle. This success inspired an ambitious new project. The water users group almost doubled and the cooperative moved to set up the Pakhu Khola Dharapani Lift Irrigation Project.

A focus on equitable distribution of water has allowed 70 % of the village households to increase crop production and diversity and village out-migration has reduced. The community’s success started with inclusive participation and leadership – women are well represented in decision-making positions. The formation of cooperative governance structures also enabled them to build a network with public and private institutions that supported their work. And lastly, owing to the bottom-up nature of the irrigation project, it fit holistically into the community’s own vision of development.

For more information contact Ganesh Dhakal (gk.dhakal@gmail.com) or Chiranjibi Rijal (csrijal@gmail.com).

Portugal: Water retention landscapes

Bernd Müller, a water specialist in the community of Tamera, southern Portugal explains: “there is enough water for all people and animals if we follow the logic of nature rather than the laws of capital.” In the summer of 2007, the community faced conditions that were typical of the region: hot, dusty, bare soil. The winter rains had eroded the fertile topsoil, aquifers dried up, and the fire hazard was high. But today the situation is drastically changed.

A perennial creek is flowing again, ponds, lakes, and ditches filled during the winter. And, vegetables and fruit trees grow even at the hottest and driest time of the year. How did they achieve this turnaround? Across 150 ha, they created a water retention landscape. This involved building a series of ditches, lakes and ponds. But they also planted many trees and modified cultivation practices adds community member, Christoph Ulbig: “the lakes are beautiful icons of our work, but the actual effect is the result of the many little things we do.

Reforestation, working the ground parallel to contours, and other means which slow down the runoff of water.” Water retention is a basic principle which allows water time to infiltrate the soil, and ultimately restore degraded ecosystems. It can and is being applied worldwide.

For more information about water retention, including seminars, contact ecology@tamera.org.

Nigeria: Fish and vegetables save

In the northern part of Cross River State of Nigeria, farmers in Obudu are enjoying the benefits of integrated fish and vegetable production. The approach is simple: waste water from fish farms around the homestead is no longer considered waste. Thanks to decomposed and uneaten foods and faeces of the fish, it is rich in nutrients and can be used to irrigate vegetables. How did this concept take off? In 2012, a group of researchers led a multistakeholder project during which time the importance of fish farming and conservation of water for agriculture became apparent. Integrating fish and vegetable production showed potential to improve farmers’ livelihoods within the bounds of water scarcity and minimal external inputs.

Young farmers clubs, churches, cooperatives and age grade associations got involved and helped to build low-cost infrastructure including holes, pots, ponds and vats for the fish. Ninety eight farmers have embraced this initiative and experience the benefits directly. Efficient use of local resources – vegetables irrigated with waste water from fish farming don’t need chemical fertilizers – has improved food and nutrition security through year-round availability of healthy vegetables and fish. To enable more farmers to take up this system, improved access to fingerlings and water for the fish farms is needed.

For more information contact Marcel Ugbong Agim (agimmarcel@gmail.com).

Bangladesh: Water saving technology for paddy rice

As water is becoming increasingly scarce in rice producing regions, concerns are growing about how to improve water use efficiency of the crop. With the alternate wetting and drying technology developed by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) together with partners, 15-30 % of irrigation water can be saved. But the way in which farmers in Bangladesh pay for water presented a ‘disincentive’ for them to try the technology. Farmers normally pay for water as a fixed amount or as a share of the crop harvested, typically about 25 %, no matter how much or how little water they use.

To make water saving beneficial to farmers, IRRI works with groups of farmers in Bangladesh to facilitate deals between pump owners and farmers to allow payment for water on the basis of the volume supplied. In the 2014 winter season, 341 farmers using the alternate wetting and drying technology saved about a sixth of their irrigation expenses and raised grain yields by 5 %. In addition, greenhouse gas emissions from their fields have been halved compared with continuous flooding. The pump owners also gained as they had surplus water to sell and could increase their number of clients. This experience will be built on to upscale the use of the technology.

For more information contact Bjoern Ole Sander (b.sander@irri.org) or visit www.knowledgebank.irri.org and https://ccafs.cgiar.org/publications/alternate-wettingand-drying-irrigated-rice.

The post Locally rooted: Ideas and initiatives from the field appeared first on Ileia.

The focus shifted more to water harvesting and retaining moisture

The watershed activities in the semi-arid regional state, receiving 400-800 mm of rainfall each year, have restored vegetation, caused groundwater levels to rise and reduced erosion.

Soil moisture has increased and in many places productivity has more than doubled. Much of the change has been due to government programmes, coordinated at the regional, district and village cluster level. What are some of the keys to this success; what have farmers experienced on the ground; and with over 15 years of experience in watershed management, what next for the region?

A new way of thinking

A new way of looking at watershed management has been an important success factor in Tigray. Before 2000, the emphasis in watershed management was on controlling soil erosion. About 15 years ago the focus shifted more to water harvesting and retaining moisture. The 3R principle – recharge, retention and reuse – explains the logic behind this approach. The central concept is to keep water in the landscape by storing it when plentiful, making it available during dry periods and extending the chain of uses. The ‘Rs’ refer to three elements of water buffering in a landscape. Recharge is about adding water to the buffer through infiltration.

Retention is about increasing the size of the buffer by slowing down the water cycle. And reuse is about circulating the water as much as possible. Enhancing each of these processes reduces unused runoff and evapotranspiration.

Many of the watershed activities in Tigray are based on the 3R principle and a repertoire of measures have been put to use by government programmes and individual farmers over the past ten years. They include physical measures (deep trenches and hill side terraces with earth or stone bunds, gully treatment, micro-basin and pitting for plantation) and water harvesting measures (river diversion, mini-dams, check-dam ponds, open hand dug wells and spring development). Local initiative combined with leadership by the local government supported a high intensity of work and led to large scale change.

Harvesting water with roads

An ‘out of the box’ solution that’s also proving successful is road water harvesting. In the village cluster, Kihan Tabia, examples of road water harvesting can be seen everywhere. There are many examples of road water harvesting being started through local initiatives and now supported by the regional and local authorities.

For example, Ataklti has two hectares of land in which he cultivates rainfed crops on a rotational basis; usually sorghum, teff and wheat. Some of his land is adjacent to the road. About ten years ago, he realised that the water from the culvert was causing erosion because it was concentrated at one point. It was eroding his brothers’ land, which became unproductive. He decided to divert the water from the culvert to his farmland to help his brother and at the same time benefit his crops. It was his own initiative to build bunds, but a few years later the government and the community helped him to strengthen the structure. The productivity of his farmland has increased and his brother is again able to cultivate rainfed crops. There hasn’t been any conflict with neighbours downstream over the use of the water from the road. And, when he has excess water during the rainy season, he lets the water flow to other farms.

Similarly, Tsadkan Berhe, from the same village cluster, has been diverting the water from the road to her land for over ten years. She has one hectare of land, where she also cultivates teff, sorghum and wheat. The bunds were built by the community as part of the Productive Safety Net Programme. The water coming from the road is extremely valuable, particularly for irrigation during dry spells in the rainy season. The quantity and quality of her crops have increased thanks to the water collected with the road. The extra water in the growing season allows her to apply fertilizers which increase her productivity. And, she is now able to feed her cattle during the dry season.

Bench terraces

With many watershed improvement options, selecting those that are locally appropriate is not trivial. In Wukro, Tigray, a stakeholder technology selection workshop identified bench terraces with hillside cisterns as a top priority for conversion of steep, often degraded hillsides into cultivable land. The workshop was organised at the end of 2012 by the WAHARA project, an EU-funded project aiming to increase the potential of water harvesting. Participants included representatives from the regional government, NGOs, educational institutes and local farmers.

The development of bench terraces has evolved from trials to a regional programme targeting the estimated quarter of a million landless youth in Tigray. The Embahasti sub-basin provides a successful example of the programme. A hillside of 15 ha has been converted to terraced land and is collectively owned and managed by 15 young women and 10 young men. Over the past two years the group has managed to meet its livelihood needs and make a saving of US$700.

‘The elephant and the mouse’

A series of watershed programmes in Tigray is largely driving changes across the landscape. This story shows that local farmers and landless youth negotiate this evolving context and shape their experiences. It shows that large scale watershed management with strong government ownership can be successful – rather than becoming a ‘white elephant’ – if it includes people’s participation, stimulating farmers and local experts in the watershed to adapt innovative and creative solutions to improve their livelihoods.

Marta Agujetas Perez, Kifle Woldearegay and Frank van Steenbergen

Marta Agujetas Perez and Frank van Steenbergen work for MetaMeta, a social research and development company.
Email: marta@metameta.nl, fvansteenbergen@metameta.nl

Kifle Woldearegay is a faculty staff member at Mekelle University, Ethiopia.
Email: kiflewold@yahoo.com

The post An Ethiopian watershed evolving appeared first on Ileia.

The need to increase water availability for agriculture through the construction of dams, channels or costly irrigation systems has dominated the agenda of development agencies and donors for over 40 years. In the Sahel, for instance, water has always been assumed to be the most severe limiting factor to agricultural productivity, yet in-depth studies from the end of the 1990s already showed that most crops in the region are mainly limited by a lack of nutrients and not by water. But a huge dam is prestigious, visible, and often pays off in political terms.

I do not mean to imply that irrigation systems are not necessary. Indeed most of our civilisations, institutions, governance and political systems emerged in ancient irrigation areas. But there is not enough water to increase our irrigation footprint much further.

What are the alternatives? The amount of water stored in the top 60 cm of one hectare of healthy soil can be enough to fill an Olympic swimming pool. Why not work on increasing water capture and storage in the soil, instead of relying exclusively on irrigation?

Back to the Sahel. The local savannah vegetation growing on extremely sandy soils and receiving 300 to 400 mm of rain per year can produce up to 20 tonnes of biomass annually. A cropping field with millet and cowpeas under the same conditions produces only one tenth of that on average. A soil under natural vegetation can infiltrate 443 mm of rain water in one hour; it can literally ‘swallow’ a storm, while a cultivated soil can only infiltrate, at max, 30 mm per hour.

This has at least two implications. First, that nature has found a way to produce large amounts of biomass in extremely dry conditions; we should learn from this and use it when designing farming systems for dry areas. For example, keeping trees or shrubs in the system can contribute to reducing soil surface temperature – and thus evaporation – dramatically. Second, those cropping systems that produce only one tenth of the biomass compared to the savannah vegetation, will also contribute only one tenth of the carbon to the soil, leading to less soil organic matter and therefore much less capacity to capture and store water.

So there is a lot to gain from restoring the soil’s capacity to capture and store water. And, as with many agroecological solutions, there are also other benefits associated with better soil physical conditions. Amongst others, increased biological diversity, more efficient nutrient cycling, erosion control and even indeed, better use of irrigation water when available.

Pablo Tittonell

Pablo Tittonell is coordinator of the National Program on Natural Resources and Environment of the Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA) in Argentina and Professor of the Farming Systems Ecology group at Wageningen University and Research Centre, the Netherlands. He is a board member of the African Conservation Tillage network and member of the Latin American Scientific Society on Agroecology (SOCLA). He is our regular columnist for 2015.

The post Opinion: Learning from nature appeared first on Ileia.

J. Rockstrom, M. Falkenmark, C. Folke, M. Lannerstad, J. Barron, E. Enfors, L. Gordon, J. Heinke, H. Hoff and C. Pahl-Wostl, 2014. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 292 pages. ISBN: 9781107024199

This book aspires to a deeper understanding of new water dynamics in the globally integrated system of people and nature. The authors have chosen to specifically address water and food in a changing world. The target audience is students, water resource professionals and water planners and as a result it is rich in detail and at times technical. Resilience is the entry point, woven into chapters on the role of water in the biosphere, human induced change to water systems, food production and water governance. A consistent message is that sustainable water stewardship is about having the capacity to deal with change. Overall the book is holistic in scope and offers plenty of ideas and insights for improved governance and management of water resources.

Valuing variability: New perspectives on climate resilient drylands development

S. Krätli, H. de Jode (ed.) 2015. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London, UK, 88 pages.

This book urges policy makers and development agents to overhaul present thinking about ‘controlling’ drylands and to consider an alternative pathway based on taking advantage of variability. The author explores vibrant dryland agricultural economies and in doing so inverts negative views about food security in the drylands.

Case studies from drylands across the world, interspersed with brief theoretical and analytical text are the substance of this book. Amongst others, case studies include indigenous terrace systems, a mainstay of non-irrigated farming in eastern Sudan, rainwater harvesting in Northwest China and sheep rearing communities in Rajasthan, India. Each example demonstrates how producers use rainfall variability as an asset. A resounding message from this book is the need to better recognise local knowledge and customary wisdom of those who live with and value the inherent variability of drylands.

Specialisation or Diversification? Divergent perspectives on rice farming in three large dam-irrigated areas in the Sahel

B. Guèye, 2014. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London, UK, 38 pages.

This report is based on the main lessons and recommendations from three case studies analysing the strategies, aspirations and constraints of the various types of farmers living around the dams of Bagré (Burkina Faso), Sélingué (Mali) and Niandouba/ Confluent (Senegal).

This document aims to contribute to national and regional reflections on policies and programmes to improve rice-based production systems in the irrigated areas and strengthen the livelihoods of farmers.

Water for food security and nutrition: A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security

HLPE, 2015. Rome, Italy, 129 pages.

This report aims to help policy makers and actors around food, agriculture and water overcome the challenge of safeguarding water for the dignity, health, food and nutrition security of everyone on the planet. The authors’ broad focus – linkages between water, food security and nutrition from the household to the global level – is framed by competing demands, rising scarcities and climate change.

The report includes a thorough analysis, for example of availability of water resources, managing water and governing water. And this supports findings and recommendations for improved management and governance. Agroecology is discussed and mentioned as an approach for improving management. Recommended domains for action, amongst others, include conservation of ecosystems, considering the most vulnerable and marginalised first, improving management in agriculture and inclusive and effective governance.

The Global Water Grab: A primer

J. Franco, S. Kishimoto, S. Kay, T. Feodoroff and G. Parucci, 2014, Transnational Institute (TNI), Netherlands, 40 pages.

“Water grabbing refers to situations where powerful actors take control of valuable water resources for their own benefit, depriving local communities whose livelihoods often depend on these resources and ecosystems.” This revised edition of the primer provides a comprehensive analysis of water grabbing worldwide. Informative chapters, complemented with case studies and selected further reading, explain: how water grabbing takes place; who are the water grabbers; and what are the key drivers of water grabbing.

The authors critique current global water governance frameworks and propose alternative frameworks making a strong case for a human rights perspective on water. The report concludes with some insights from existing resistance to water grabbing and notes that alternative models emerging from these struggles “promote water management practices forged around common values that redefine the meaning of ‘public’ beyond solely ‘state-run’ and eschew profit-seeking approaches.” More information

More on water
Film makers, writers, academics and activists have been motivated to tell stories about water from as many angles imaginable. This box lists a few more books and films which, in their own ways, provide deeper insight into water.
 
Scaling up Multiple Use Water Services, Accountability in the water sector (2014) by B. van Koppen et al. is a good introduction to multiple use water services, a participatory approach that takes people’s multiple water needs as the starting point for planning and designing water services.
 
Water, Power and Identity, The cultural politics of water in the Andes (2015) by R. Boelens addresses the complex conflicting relationship between communities managing water on the ground and national/global policy-making institutions and elites; and how grassroots defend against encroachment. Daughter of the Lake (2015, 87 minutes), directed by Ernesto Cabellos Damián, follows an Andean woman’s struggle for justice in the midst of a life and death water conflict between farmers and a goldmine in Peru. DamNation (2014, 87 minutes), directed by Ben Knight and Travis Rummel, explores the change in American attitudes from pride in big dams as engineering wonders to the growing awareness that the future is bound to the life and health of rivers.
 
One Water (2008, 67 minutes), directed by Sanjeev Chatterjee, looks at the myriad ways water has touched human lives around the globe. Viewers are left with the critical question: is water a human right or a commodity?
 
There are plenty more books, films and multimedia resources on water. The Water Channel (www.thewaterchannel.tv) is an online open resource that proves just this. The website is home to hundreds of videos and dossiers on key water themes, providing visitors the opportunity to upload videos and join online discussion forums.

The post Mind! Books and films appeared first on Ileia.

Farmers’ stewardship of water and soils is disregarded

Agriculture is the main water user in the world. 70 % of water is withdrawn by the agricultural sector, 20 % by the non-farming industry and 10 % by domestic users.

These figures hint at the hidden water that is traded when food and commodities are bought and sold. Thus, global corporations that trade the world’s food and heavily influence agricultural markets also influence how water is used.

Global agricultural trade

Ten years ago, global agricultural trade was exclusively dominated by five Western agribusiness conglomerates: ADM (Archer Daniels Midland), Bunge, Cargill, Louis Dreyfus and Glencore, together accounting for about 80 % of all staple commodities. These companies are free trade advocates, yet they are among the biggest recipients of public agricultural subsidies in industrialised countries. Cargill can hoard so much grain that it can single-handedly create scarcity or manipulate the price – up in times of scarcity, and down in abundant times. This has severe consequences for farmers as it can make farming uneconomic in particular regions.

These players have prime state of the art information systems and excellent relations with political and economic movers and shakers on the global scene. They dominate food marketing and even dabble in the banking business, offering ‘risk management solutions’. In other words, these corporations control the world’s agricultural markets. Through that, they also manage and control a large part of the world’s water resources, as we will explain.

After the food price spikes of 2007/8, and food riots in some 30 countries, public and private actors faced with food scarcity started to look for direct investment opportunities, e.g. through state companies and stateowned investment funds. In particular, the Chinese owned investment fund, CofCo, purchased the food unit of Noble Group, a large trader of bulk commodities, in 2014. The goal was to counter Western control over food trade by establishing a trader similar to Cargill, but based in China.

Hidden water

The ‘virtual water content’ of a product is the volume of freshwater used to produce that product at the place where it was actually produced. The volumes of ‘virtual water’ traded around the world are large but remain hidden. In particular, South America, the water tower of the world in terms of availability per person, is of fundamental importance for the production of food that is shipped to other less water-endowed regions.

Global traders are not forthcoming about their water use. They account for all inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, labour and energy. The only resource missing is water. And their dominant role in ‘virtual water’ trade and therefore global water governance must be made clear.

Gross international virtual water flows from 1996 to 2005. Those greater than 15 km3 are illustrated with arrows. Source: Hoekstra and Mekonnen

Traders influence water resource management through market power and active sourcing decisions. The relationship between traders and farmers can influence whether management will be sustainable. For example, if traders support their suppliers to grow food using sustainable water management options, the world’s water resources could be under less pressure.

Mismanagement

Although 30 % of the world’s aquifers are heavily depleted, this increasingly scarce water is still used for unsustainable irrigation projects and often traded in commodities. Water is not managed wisely because it is not officially counted as an input factor. Irrigation leading to higher yields, often subsidised to keep prices low, is the preferred option to keep the global food trade system going. Even though about 40 % of food is wasted globally due to inefficiencies in the food system, the powerful minority are intent on maintaining the status quo. And in the process, farmers and their sustainable stewardship of water and soils are disregarded. Instead of addressing sustainable water and soil management another round of externalising environmental costs is taking place.

Land grabbing

Next to unsustainable and wasteful use of water, the control over water by Western and increasingly Asian traders has led to a scramble for land with water. The land and water grabbing we witness today works like a new enclosure movement, effectively undermining farmers’ traditional rights to water and land.

Globally, millions of hectares have been leased by investors ‘betting on a quick buck’ at the expense of local populations. In Africa and Asia, land rights are often not codified, or contradictory, so that investors can easily treat these plots as ‘unoccupied’ and ‘underutilised’.

For pastoralists, enclosed lands impede traditional grazing patterns and access to vital natural resources. Governments collude and facilitate land grabbing to make money. And these are not small plots: the ProSAVANA land development project in Mozambique, a cooperation between Mozambique, Brazil and Japan in the name of increasing agricultural production, covers an area equal to Austria and Switzerland combined.

Ethiopia is likewise carved up among domestic and even foreign investors. Europe is not exempt. Land and water grabbing is notably visible in the fertile lands of Romania and Bulgaria. These are only a few telling examples. This is a dangerous situation for the quantity and quality of water resources and a threat to family farmers whose lives and livelihoods depend on sustainable access to clean and affordable water.

More accountability

Accountability of the few is not an option but an imperative

While trade is global, water management takes place at the local level. This raises important questions about power asymmetries because money and power is accumulated in the hands of a few global traders who largely ignore the needs of the many farmers that manage and use the water.

Accountability of the few for their role in water governance, management and use is thus not an option but an imperative to avoid an all-out water crisis. This is our key message for actors working to improve global water governance.

Obligatory accounting for water use would force corporations to disclose their water footprint via their balance sheets to allow investors and the interested public to compare and contrast performance. In that way, global agricultural traders would not only disclose their water footprint but their full power in global trade would be made public.

Jeroen Warner, Martin Keulertz and Suvi Sojamo

Jeroen Warner is an associate professor of Disaster Studies at Wageningen University.
Email: jeroenwarner@gmail.com

Martin Keulertz is a research associate at Texas A&M Water-Energy-Food Nexus Group.
Email: martin.keulertz@gmail.com

Suvi Sojamo is a PhD researcher at the Water and Development Research Group, Aalto University, Finland.
Email: suvi.sojamo@aalto.fi

Together with J Anthony Allan, they edited the Handbook of Land and Water Grabs in Africa.

The post Perspectives: How global food traders manage our water appeared first on Ileia.