Will Future Water Professionals Sink under Received Wisdom

Will Future Water Professionals Sink under Received Wisdom, or Swim to a New Paradigm? Douglas J Merrey World Water Day 2008: The Water Professional of Tomorrow, 12 th NETHCID Symposium, Wageningen University

Question of the Day for Water Professionals Will we use our skills and opportunities simply to re -confirm and further consolidate, through tinkering, old paradigms of thinking and acting? Or will we throw off the shackles on our minds, ask new questions, and thereby create new paradigms for a better world? (And will we train our future students to overthrow our own sacred paradigms? )

Outline 1. 2. Investing in “Water Security” as a necessary condition for rapid economic development Assess three assumptions underlying the Water Security Argument A. B. Its necessity: the “minimum platform” Large-scale water infrastructure is necessary to achieve water security Ø Alternatives ignored: the case of agricultural water management in sub-Saharan Africa C. Faith in “stakeholder consultation” to ensure equity and environmental sustainability 3. 4. A political economic perspective on water investments Conclusions: Priorities for the Water Professionals of tomorrow—research and action

1. The Water Security Case Ø “Sink or Swim? Water security for growth and development, ” David Grey and Claudia Sadoff, Water Policy 2007 ü Excellent article making the case for renewed investments on water infrastructure, especially in Africa ü Draw on their argument, as it represents an increasingly dominant view in development banks ü Though I am questioning some of their assumptions, I respect their having moved the Bank from a low-risk no-action stance ü Freely using Dr Grey’s slides with thanks Ø Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) focus—my current interest; greatest infrastructure gap; and likely big investments in future

African Infrastructure Gap Ø Until recently investments in infrastructure declining Ø Huge gap by all possible measures üHalf population no sanitation üLower road density than India in 1950 üSchools, hospitals, communications üOnly a few countries e. g. , South Africa, can invest enough to reduce gap quickly Ø Some slides from Dr. Grey

2108 2, 000 1, 800 United States consumption – 12000 k. Wh/capita/yr 1, 600 1, 400 581 800 29 Burkina Faso 114 38 Uganda 204 55 Tanzania 126 21 200 85 400 184 600 430 1, 000 500 k. Wh/capita/year minimum consumption for reasonable quality of life 900 1, 200 Morocco Egypt Algeria World Average Energy use person in Africa Senegal Ghana Kenya Ethiopia Nigeria 0 Cameroon Elec consumption (k. Wh/yr)/Capita Infrastructure gap: Access to electricity

The infrastructure gap: Hydropower

Water storage person (m 3) 7, 000 6, 150 6, 000 4, 729 5, 000 4, 000 3, 255 2, 486 1, 406 North America Australia Brazil China 43 South Africa 0 746 Ethiopia 1, 000 1, 287 Laos 2, 000 Thailand 3, 000

‘Water security’: Investment gap Country Additional Storage needed person (m 3) Storage investments required person (US$) Storage Investments Required (US$ Billion) Period needed at 5% current GDP investment per year (no pop. inc. ) (Years) Lesotho 751 939 1. 7 44 Namibia 542 678 1. 3 8 Nigeria 402 503 67. 3 32 Ethiopia 555 694 46. 2 144 Kenya 307 384 12. 1 24 Tanzania 610 763 27. 4 60 Uganda 511 639 17. 9 58 Burkina Faso 152 190 2. 5 22 Senegal 683 854 9. 9 40 Algeria 239 299 9. 8 4

Devastating Impacts of Variable and Uncertain Rainfall Worsened by Lack of Storage and Inadequate institutional and infrastructural Capacity to Manage Impacts of Floods and Droughts

Variability - Annual rainfall in Kenya during 1956 – 1982 Correlation between GDP and Rainfall in Zimbabwe

2000 & 2001 winters: extreme flooding in Mozambique

Mozambique’s 2000 floods -23% +44%

“Water Security” Ø Definition: ‘Acceptable’ quantity and quality of water for life and ecosystems with ‘acceptable’ level of water-related risks Ø Necessary condition for economic growth ü Wealthy countries ‘harnessed hydrology’—most in easy conditions ü Poor countries faced with “difficult hydrology” § “direct consequence” – Have not achieved water security § Some “hampered by hydrology” § Some even worse off—”hostage to hydrology” Bleak prognosis unless huge investments made to achieve “minimum platform” of water security

Poverty and Hydrology—Grey and Sadoff

2. Three assumptions A. Water security as necessary condition for economic growth B. Achieving water security requires largescale water infrastructure C. High level of faith that “stakeholder consultation” will ensure equity and environmental sustainability

A. Water security as necessary condition for economic growth Ø Use “stories, ” e. g. , TVA in USA, Murray-Darling in Australia, hydroelectric in western Europe to make positive case ü Imply these were critical pre-requisites to national growth – but no evidence given ü Admit but minimize social and environmental costs ü No questions asked on longer-term sustainability Ø Contested argument that increasingly resonates in other “over-developed” areas in Asia, Mexico, USA Ø Question not asked: Were there alternative investments to achieve development goals? ü Public presentations—say “there is no alternative” Need critical in-depth studies and use these studies as basis for developing more useful scenario and decision-support tools

B. Achieving water security requires large-scale water infrastructure Ø “Infrastructure” includes institutions necessary to build and manage it Ø Where hydrology “difficult” failure to invest in water security “deeper hole” Ø In this situation, initial returns to large water infrastructure will be low in conventional terms ü Growing investments higher returns over time until minimum platform, then balance of managementinfrastructural investment returns shift

Achieving water security requires largescale water infrastructure § Are there no alternatives? § If so, why are they not considered? § What is needed in terms of knowledge, skills, public action to stimulate and contribute to such debates? The Case of Agricultural Water Management (AWM) Investments in SSA

The “Consensus” View Ø Low level of irrigation in SSA Ø Massive irrigation investments key to Asian “Green Revolution” Ø Therefore, massive irrigation investments are needed in SSA Ø Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Program (CAADP), and Ø Commission for Africa (“Blair Report”) Both argue for doubling irrigated area by 2015 Are the “solutions” of yesterday and Asia applicable to the future and to SSA?

The Figures on irrigated Area

Some counter-arguments Ø Most staple food is not irrigated in SSA ü Improving rainfed agriculture may have higher payoffs to reduce poverty (Comprehensive Assessment) Ø Insufficient surface water available Ø Financial and human resources insufficient ü High cost, though often SSA costs are exaggerated Ø Long gestation period formal irrigation Ø Wide range of low-cost individualized AWM technologies available and proven successful ü Per Euro invested, more beneficiaries, food security, income, achievable in short time, with better opportunity to target

Why is there strong resistance to supporting policies and programs for micro-AWM & rain fed? • Growing evidence of benefits • Benefits accrue quickly • Synergies with infrastructure projects • Development banks, governments pay lip service to rainfed and small technologies WHY?

IA B M A Z Treadle Pumps--Types IZ A W S D N LA KENYA S. AFRICA IN DI A ZAM BIA

C. Faith in “Stakeholder Consultation” Ø International consensus view this will lead to equitable and harmonious “IWRM” o Social and environmental costs can be reduced using local knowledge and consultation Is this realistic? Ø Most citizens poor, not organized, lack information ü Up against power vested interests supported by government officials Even South Africa, best example of a country that is committed and trying—disappointing results

Will ‘stakeholder consultation’ be added to the long list of failed water reforms? Ø Radical reforms needed for effective empowerment of stakeholders—rare Ø Need large-scale comparative studies on approaches to identifying drivers for success Ø Need radical change in training of water professionals ü Even M. Sc. courses in “IWRM” rarely provide real training in building coalitions and working with stakeholders

3. Political Economy of Water Investments Ø Why do development banks, governments continued to emphasize need for largescale infrastructure investments nearly exclusively with little attention to water options that may benefit more people more quickly at lower costs? üWhy do they continue to pay lip service to ‘stakeholder consultation’ but avoid creating the political conditions necessary for it to work?

Political Economy of Water Investments Ø Political economy of water investment decisions is a knowledge gap üWageningen University a leader in researching politics of irrigation schemes and now river basin management üRhetoric: banks support country-driven projects—reality quite different and complex Ø IIMI Dutch associate expert examined this in 2 Sri Lankan irrigation schemes funded by ADB 20 years ago

Political Economy of Water Investments Ø Sri Lanka case: ADB & its consultants drove projects ü ü Imposed design and operational standards Never accepted by Irrigation Dept. No ownership—”No one cared” Bank but not government reacted very negatively to Nijman’s drafts Ø Development banks-consultants-governments”beneficiaries” nexus: complex and not understood ü Fertile ground for research ü Development bank staff may do excellent technical studies but work within their own institutional paradigms ü Universities better placed to do this than international organizations

4. Conclusions: Research and Action Priorities for Tomorrow’s Water Professional Grand opportunities to make a different in Africa ü African professionals—special responsibility & commitment ü Others can work as partners, learning and contributing together, and influencing governments and policy shapers globally Water is political: Powerful vested interests maximize benefits. ü In this context how can we knowledge producers and processors play a more active and decisive role? Conclude with a few questions to open a wider discussion at this Conference

Research and Action Priorities for Tomorrow’s Water Professional Ø Is “water security” a pre-requisite for development? Ø Is large-scale infrastructure the only road to water security üWho are its real beneficiaries in developing countries üWhat constellation of interests and driving forces lead to favoring large-scale infrastructure over alternatives? Applies to development banks, governments

Research and Action Priorities for Tomorrow’s Water Professional Ø Are there alternative investment roads? ü How can the policy space be widened to consider alternative options? ü How can coalitions be mobilized nationally and internationally to support alternatives? Ø What strategies and reforms can empower poor stakeholders to participate effectively in investment decisions? ü How can governments and international agencies foster this? Or are they indeed part of the problem?

Research and Action Priorities for Tomorrow’s Water Professional • What indeed are the proper roles for knowledge producers and processors and how can our effectiveness be enhanced? To inform research and actions socially as well as technically, a new kind of water professional will be needed in future • Much to do, little time Will the water professionals of tomorrow work within and therefore sink under old paradigms?

Or will we swim to new paradigms and thereby a better world in future? Our real clients

More clients Thank you!