7th WWF day 2

7th World Water Forum in Daegu and Gyeongju, Korea - day 2

I visited four events today, starting with the opening ceremony of the thematic sessions, followed by two thematic sessions on the human right of water and water policies, and finally a scientific session on climate change impact and vulnerability.

Thematic Opening Ceremony

This opening ceremony was organized by the WWF7 secretariat and attended by about 200 people.

Speakers:

Facilitator: Gillian Martin Mehers

Dr. Mark Smith

Dr. Hyoseop Woo

Dr. Naoko Ishii, CEO Global Environment Facility

Dr. Gyewoon Choi, CEO K-Water

Objective: The opening session will provide the understanding on where the global water challenges have been now and how they will be able to be improved and resolved by feasible actions and implementation with our willingness and strong commitments. The thematic opening session will give you the inspiration for discussing feasible solutions to water issues around the world at this moment through the 7th Forum in 2015.

Session excerpts:

Smith: The Implementation Roadmaps are strategic plans meant to made commitments to, practical outcome of the thematic sessions. They will be finalized in the sessions this week. They will set the agendas for implementation. Make sure your vision for change is included in the IR. We will be ready to act on SDGs with the IRs. There is an online tool for tracking progress of the IRs, action launching system. 

Woo: The most important thing of the concluding sessions is to launch the IR. 

Ishii: GEF funded many global projects against environmental degradation, but how can we be sure we made a meaningful difference on a global scale? I started a first planetary boundary framework. Rapid human development has altered many boundaries of the planet. We need to live, consume and produce within these boundaries. 3 key approaches: 1: integrated approach rather than silo approaches; 2: driver focused instead of consequences; 3: strengthen multi stakeholder approaches. But there was much resistance against this plan. There is a big knowledge gap between scientists and policy makers. Lessons learned: 1: Scientists need to form the questions that policymakers have, they need to point to policy answers; 2: we need multi stakeholder platforms: government, scientists, civil society, companies, for shared investments; 3: the role of financing is important to tackle the scale of issues, public and private funds needed; 4: vulnerability and resilience, water can provide a buffer function (e.g. wetlands and groundwater); 5: both women and men need to be active practitioners in implementation; 6: in a time of climate change, the past is no longer a reliable predictor of the future, we should learn to produce more with less, the future depends on what we do in the present. 

Choi: Water has an inseparable link to human life. As society became more complex, the perspectives on water became more diverse, depending on standards of living. 3 solutions: 1: perspective, 2: infrastructure, 3: paradigm shift in water management. 1: We should show empathy with one another about how to use water. We should first put ourselves in the shoes of others. The foremost important function is survival. 2: IWRM implemented in Korea to solve industrial pollution problems. NGOs' participation should be strengthened. Technical and political support from developed countries are a big help. We should not repeat the same mistakes from the past. 3: We need to perform smart water management to resolve conflicts. Smart means using technological measures and combining traditional water management and decision making systems, real time monitoring of entire river basin.

Session T.1.1.1 Safe drinking water for all: Realizing the human right to water and sanitation

This session was organized by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the Freshwater Action Network - Mexico (FANMex), and attended by about 100 people.

Agenda:

Session moderated by Mr. Jan van de Venis, WaterLex

Introductory remarks: Mr. Ron Sawyer, Freshwater Action Network Mexico (FANMex), Ms. Chantal Demilecamps, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)

Panel discussion - Where do we stand? Supporting policy processes to ensure access to water for all and role of different stakeholders

Mr. Yannick Pavageau, Ministry of Social Affairs, Health and Womens Rights, France

Ms. Chantal Demilecamps, UNECE

Mr. David Alves, Water and Waste Services Regulation Authority of Portugal (ERSAR)

Mr. Roukiattou Ouedraogo, Permanent Secretariat of NGOs (SPONG)

Ms. Eva Carazo, FAN Central America (FANCA) 

Interactive discussion: Do current governance frameworks support access to water for all? How can different stakeholders contribute to the realization of the human right to water?

Panel of experts - Access to safe drinking water for all: Making it happen on the ground

Mr. Fred van Zyl, South Africa Department of Water and Sanitation

Ms. Sarantuyaa Zandaryaa, UNESCO

Mr. Senugman Cha, Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA)

Mr. Murali Ramsetty, Freshwater Action Network South Asia (FANSA)

Mr. Bojan Jojic, Prijedor Municipality, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Interactive discussion: What are the key success factors of projects to ensure access to water supply services for all? 

Concluding messages: safe water for all in post 2015 

Mr. Luc Recordon, Member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Switzerland

Objective: Access to water and access to sanitation have been recognized as a human right in 2010. Implementing this fundamental right is a legally binding obligation. This right entitles each person to have sufficient supply of water for personal and domestic uses, access to water of safe quality, being accessible physically and continuously, culturally acceptable and affordable without discrimination. Although the world claims to have met the Millennium Development Goal drinking water target, at least 748 million people still lack access to an improved and safe drinking water source in 2012. The full and effective realization of the human right to water requires to pay attention to universality ? access to safe water for everyone ? but also to improve participatory governance with a specific focus on the elimination of inequalities and an emphasis on participation, empowerment, accountability and transparency, key elements to ensure any human right. The session will illustrate how policy frameworks can incorporate human rights considerations, present concrete examples of how provision of water services can be improved and how stakeholders’ engagement can facilitate the implementation of the right to water.

Session excerpts:

Sawyer: 1.8-2.2 billion people are without access to water. What do we need? Human resources, community/user participation in planning/management to deliver water/sanitation services. Identify demand for shared responsibility also of monitoring. Continue to highlight the human right to water, integrate these in indicators of SDGs. Sanitation must be given equal footing with water due to the links between health, environment. 

Demilecamps: Statistics hide the inequities in services or reversed trends in some countries. Universal access to everyone means we need to eliminate the inequities. We need political power and long term strategies. 

Pavageau: France has been involved since the meeting in Geneva in 2007. The right to water and sanitation has been recognized for 5 years, but until it is implemented people in developing countries continue to suffer. We need concrete methods of solidarity. In France we made important health commitments and solidarity funds for impoverished children. Pay attention to the 'No one left behind' guide, is a summary document showing France’s measures for policymakers. It has five main themes, including vulnerable people. Now there is a second document: self-assessment tool for policies with indicators. 

Demilecamps: We need a practical policy instrument to implement the human right to water.

Carazo: We are fighting to improve the position of local people and their human rights in cases of water extraction by companies for fracking and drinking water extraction, mining, etc. Only 24 countries signed an alternative human right to water document. 

Q&A Demillecamps: The 4th part of the score card focuses on marginalized people, to get countries to talk about which information/policy progress can be improved.

How do people approach the concept that 'water should be free' if people can’t afford it? A human right does not imply it is provided for free, but rather there should be mechanisms to support their access. This mechanism shifts the discussion from water should be free to what can we do for people living in poverty. There is always someone paying for it. This different approach is very important so that a difference in economic situation is not a difference in access. 

Van Zyl: We have to ensure we succeed. In 1996 water was already declared a human right in the South African constitution. We have so many communities, we cannot tackle them one by one but have to think big. There is a huge information system present. We would like to share our three mistakes: the leadership changed, the program became dispersed, and the drive lost; the reliability of services was underestimated, operations and maintenance was poor; people were not owning or accountable for the projects. Major public frustrations followed. In 2014 water became the top priority of the cabinet. The goal is: 90% reliability in 2019 and universal access. We have 9 actions in our action plan, example actions are to tackle the aging infrastructure, unserved people, environment, improved governance. These are all coordinated among each other. Water is life, sanitation is dignity.

Zandaryaa (theme coordinator 1.1): The UNDP determined water costs should not exceed 3% of household income.

Cha: Research showed there is no correlation by sanitation needs across countries, inequality and sanitation coverage has stayed the same. Should we provide material or financial subsidies? On the ground people expect to receive these. There are concerns about improved latrines, many people don’t want to change their sanitation behavior. Does shaming work in an ODA project, is it culturally appropriate? Many people are not ashamed of open defecation. 

Ramsetty: Access to water was 65%, safe water was 19%, and sanitation was 19% in 2010 in India. Exclusion for marginalized people is a huge problem. 2 solutions: empowering these marginalized people to claim their rights and access services, and mobilize various forces in societies to encourage human right to water and sanitation. Mapping the excluding communities is needed, who are the people, how many are there? For the second solution we need to do budget tracking, is the budget really spent, for who is it spent and is it really beneficial? Did it realize the results we wanted, for who did it generate results? Is it viable to make safe water stations for washing? These are some of the practical approaches we worked on.

Jojic: People didn't return fast after the war, one reason was there was no water access. 

Session T.1.3.5 Enhancing resilience through robust water policies and appropriate water management

This session was organized by the Alliance for Global Water Adaptation (AGWA) and UNESCO International Hydrological Programme, and attended by about 100 people.

Agenda:

14:40 - 14:50 The challenge of mainstreaming climate change: new choices, new opportunities for water management, JOHN MATTHEWS, AGWA

14:50 - 15:05 Mainstreaming Adaptation Through Investments, DIEGO RODRIGUEZ, WORLD BANK

15:05 - 15:20 Mainstreaming Adaptation for Ecosystems within the Built Landscape

ERIC HOA, UNEP

15:20 - 15:35 Mainstreaming Adaptation Through Engineering and Infrastructure

WILL LOGAN, INSTITUTE OF WATER RESOURCES, US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (ICIWaRM)

15:35 - 15:50 Mainstreaming Adaptation Through Knowledge Services

ANIL MISHRA, UNESCO-IHP

15:50 - 16:05 Mainstreaming Adaptation Through Global Policy and Governance

KARIN LEXEN, SIWI

16:05 - 16:40 Panel Discussion

ANIL MISHRA, UNESCO-IHP (moderator)

ALEXANDRE GROSS, BRAZILIAN NATIONAL WATER AGENCY (ANA)

CEES VAN DE GUCHTE, DELTARES

CHRISTINE CHAN, AGWA, ASIA-PACIFIC WATER FORUM

ALI CHAVOSHIAN, IRAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Objective: How do we mainstream climate adaptation into our water resources management so that our institutions, policies, and infrastructure are robust and resilient? Can responding to climate impacts help us bridge long-standing gaps between policy, science economics and engineering, and ecosystems and engineering? Should we reconsider how we approach governance at local, national, basin, and transboundary scales given uncertainties in emerging water conditions? What does long-term sustainability mean in the context of ongoing shifts in the water cycle over coming decades and centuries? Can we move beyond fixed-climate water management? This session will seek to foster a dialogue between the audience and the speakers on the emergence of new issues and new solutions that enable the practical implementation of climate adaptation of water resources. Furthermore, the interactive panel session aims to contribute to develop climate adaptation feedback mechanisms in the context of upcoming Sustainable Development Goals. We will span a wide variety of institutions, regions, technical disciplines, and policy approaches.

Session excerpts:

Matthews: No regret solutions, we have to do things we have consensus on. Climate change practitioners are becoming their own second generation of experts. 

Rodriguez: We have 22 billion dollars to invest. If we downscale GCMs, we ignore many issues related to water use.

Mishra: We have a flood monitor with indicators online.

Lexen: There are SDGs for energy, food, climate, health and growth linkages.
More information can be found in the photos:

Session S.3.1 Tools and methodology development on the climate change impact and vulnerability

This session was organized by the Korea Environment Institute (KEI) and UNESCO IHP RSC for Southeast Asia and the Pacific (IHP-RSC), and attended by about 20 people.

Speakers:

Moderators: Kei (unidentified) and UNESCO (Takara)

Jeongho Lee, KACCC, KEI

Natalie Dorgfliger, BRGM France

Kaoru Takara, Kyoto University/Unesco ihp rsc-seap

Professor Hery Harjono, APCE, LIPI

Professor Ignasius Sutapa

Objective: The global climate change is a phenomenon already underway and affects exceedingly unusual natural patterns of weather events and water cycle. This makes water related problems, especially, such as floods and droughts, more difficult to analyze and predict. Since climate change is predicted to have a range of serious consequences, some of which will have impact over the long term, it is appropriate that comprehensive methods for assessing impacts induced by climate change should be prepared. The present session will focus on the methods developed for climate change impact and vulnerability assessment including not only conceptual development but the latest model developments, their applications, and scientific collaborative research for climate change adaptation in line with UNESCO and APHW activities.

Session excerpts:

Lee: explanation of the Korean local vulnerability assessment procedure. You can obtain a permit and download their software freely. Another tool is the website VESTAP where you can see the calculated vulnerability of Korea. 

Q&A: Lee about indicators, 8 for vulnerability (e.g. water temperature), 13-16 for exposure (e.g. status of levees), 8-12 for capacity (e.g. number of local government officers).

More information can be found in the photos: