Introduction: Global Water Challenges

Water is a key element of the earth system with all its geophysical, biological, and human-
social interactions. Freshwater is a pre requisite of human well-being in terms of drinking water
and sanitation, food security and health, industrial processes and energy supply, transportation
and recreation, and further goods and services delivered by ecosystem integrity and freshwater
biodiversity.
About 80% of the global population faces a human security challenge in relation to water
(Vorosmarty et al. 2010). The amount of water available per person is shrinking because of the
growing demands of a consumer society as well as a growing population base. This problem is
exacerbated by governance failures in controlling the use and abuse of water while protecting
the water system so that it can sustainably provide the wealth of ecosystem services
(supporting, provisioning, regulatory, and cultural) that society has always depended upon
The Anthropocene is predicted to compound the complexity of water issues around the world.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) notes that anthropogenic climate
change is increasing the intensity and variability of rainfall events and elevating water
temperatures on a global scale (Perkins et al. 2007). These impacts are projected to affect global
water availability and its quality by exacerbating many existing pollution and distribution
issues.
Water policy has tended to be approached in the context of a locality, country or catchment
area; however, scientific debates have produced compelling arguments for adopting a global
perspective on water management (Griggs, D et al. 2013).This has included an increased
recognition that many problems with water management are more associated with governance
failures than with resource-based issues (e.g., scarcity). As such, it has been argued that there
is a need for a paradigm shift away from technocratic strategies of water management towards
regimes that appreciate institutional complexities and human dimensions of water resources.
Although achieving good water governance is regarded as a global challenge, water governance
is generally seen as a local or regional issue. Where water issues extend beyond the borders of
local communities, the river basin is generally seen as the most appropriate unit for analysis,
planning and institutional arrangements (UNGA, 1997; GWP, 2000). As a result, most efforts
focus on seeking proper institutional arrangements (structures or mechanisms of social order
and cooperation) at a local or river basin level.
Hoekstra (2006) shows, however, that water governance does have a global dimension. The
most important factors that give water governance a global dimension, include (i) climate
change, (ii) privatization of drinking water, sanitation and irrigation services, and (iii)
increasing ‘virtual water trade’ between nations (the trade in water virtually embedded in traded
goods and services). The latter factor received little academic attention until five years ago
(Hoekstra, 2003). Thus far, virtual water trade has been researched either to quantitatively
assess actual virtual water flows between nations
Figure 1.1: Water scarcity based on a consumer oriented indicator: water footprint as a
percentage of total actual renewable water resources (Data source: Chapagain & Hoekstra,
2004).

The Brundtland-report and the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro mark the worldwide acceptance
of the notion of sustainable development (WCED, 1987; UNCED, 1992). Sustainable
development consists of three dimensions: the social, ecological, and economic dimension
(Rogers et al., 1998; WSSD, 2002; Hildering, 2004). The business community often refers to
these dimensions as people-planet-profit. In order to make these three dimensions more
tangible, criteria have been proposed against which policy can be evaluated (Daly, 1996;
Rogers et al., 2002). These criteria are ecological sustainability, social equity and economic
efficiency. The need for indicators that cover these criteria results in the following overview:
• Social equity: This can be measured by means of the Gini-coefficient, a measure of inequality
of a distribution of resources (in this case: water resources). The Gini-coefficient is a ratio with
values between 0 (uniform distribution) and 1 (fully inequitable distribution). The numerator
of this ratio is the area between the Lorenz curve of a distribution and the uniform distribution
line; the denominator is the triangle area under the uniform distribution line. The uniform
distribution line represents full social equity.
• Ecological sustainability: For water governance, ecological sustainability requires human
appropriation of water resources to stay within certain environmental limits. The position of
these environmental limits is subjective to some extent. Raskin et al. (1997) introduced a
simplified categorization of ecological sustainability. When the ‘criticality ratio’ (the
withdrawal-to-availability ratio) is between 0.2 and 0.4, this is referred to as water stress, while
a ratio above 0.4 is referred to as water scarce. Consequently, ecological sustainability occurs
when the criticality ratio remains below 0.2.
• Economic efficiency: This can be measured by the criterion of Pareto efficiency, which
defines the economically optimal situation as the state in which no individual can be made
better off without another being made worse off.
A glance at the present and future situation of these criteria shows that without change, global
water governance will not reach a condition of social equity, ecological sustainability and
economic efficiency. With regard to social equity, water footprints differ strongly among
countries, partly because of differences in consumption but also partly because of differences
in water productivities. While the average American has a water footprint of 2480 m3/cap/yr,
China has an average water footprint of only 700 m3/cap/yr (Chapagain & Hoekstra, 2004).
Many countries have an average per capita water footprint below the threshold value required
for sufficient food, which is about 1000 m3/cap/yr (Zehnder et al., 2003; UN-Water, 2006).
With reference to ecological sustainability, Postel et al. (1996) argue that if average per capita
water demand remains the same in 2025 compared to the 1990 level (which is conservative,
because withdrawals per capita increased nearly 50% between 1950 and 1990), human
appropriation of geographically and temporally accessible runoff will be 70%. Because Postel
et al. (1996) do not account for environmental flow requirements; this figure implies a large
strain on ecosystems throughout the world. The three main reasons for an increasing human
appropriation of water resources are (i) an increasing human population, (ii) increasing
standards of living and (iii) the growing need for biomass as an energy carrier.
With respect to economic efficiency, the price of water resources generally does not reflect all
costs. Failing price structures, perverse subsidies and privatization without sound regulation
are common in both developed and developing countries (Van der Zaag & Savenije, 2006;
UNDP, 2006). In such situations, countries that import water-intensive goods profit to the
detriment of vulnerable water users in exporting countries that lack a strong voice, such as
small farmers, fishermen, women or local ecosystems.

Water Governance
Presently, there is a recognition that the efficient consideration of water problems in all their
complexity and the implementation of an economically efficient, socially equitable and
environmentally sustainable water resource management can only be achieved through good
water resource governance.
In recent years, the concept of governance has gained ground, in the context of water policy,
related to the concept of sustainable development. Good water governance is considered
necessary to provide adequate consideration of water problems in all their complexity and to
warrant efficient and equitable water use and management, ensuring economic, social and
environmental sustainability. The author has provided elsewhere (Cunha, 2008) a
comprehensive view of the development of the concept of water governance
Historically, the concept of water governance appeared for the first time in 2000, at the second
World Water Forum in the Hague (WWC,2000).But the Forum Declaration referred to good
water governance as water resource management involving public interest and stakeholders’
participation, which is a comparatively narrow definition. Only one year later, at the Bonn
Freshwater Conference (FMENCNS, 2001), a preparatory meeting of the Johannesburg
Summit of 2002, the concept of water governance was broadened, to include institutional
reform, legal framework, equitable access and Integrated Water Resources Management.
In general, governance may be defined as one way in which traditions and institutions balance
power in the administration of a country. According to the definition put forward by GWP
(2002)and accepted by the United Nations (UNESCO, 2003), water governance refers to “the
range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in place to develop and
manage water resources, and the delivery of water services, at different levels of society”
Water governance aims to define who has access to water and in which circumstances, how is
water quality guaranteed and how are decisions taken in case of water scarcity. Water crises
would thus be the result of inadequate governance, more than of actual water scarcity. As
Rogers and Hall (2003) state, “governance relates to a broad social system of governing, which
includes, but is not restricted to, the narrower perspective of government as the main decision-
making political entity”. The water sector, as part of the socio-economic system, is conditioned
by general politics and is, thus, influenced by decisions that lie outside of the water sector.
Water governance determines who gets which water, when and how, and establishes who has
the right to water and to water services. Their presentation of various interests in water
decision-making and the role of politics are important in the definition of governance
dynamics.
Water governance is considered to have four different dimensions – social, economic,
environmental and political –which have been identified by UNESCO (2006) in the following
way:
The social dimension points out the equitable use of water resources. Apart from being
unevenly distributed in time and space, water is also unevenly distributed among various socio-
economic strata of society, in both rural and urban areas. How water quantity and quality and
related services are allocated and distributed has direct impacts on people’s health, as well as
on their livelihood opportunities.
The economic dimension draws attention to the efficient use of water resources and to the role
of water in overall economic growth. Prospects for aggressive poverty reduction and economic
growth remain highly dependent on water and other natural resources. Studies have illustrated
that per-capita incomes and the quality of governance are strongly positively correlated across
countries.
The environmental dimension shows that improved governance allows for enhanced
sustainable use of water resources and ecosystem integrity. The sufficient flow of water of
good quality is critical to maintaining ecosystem functions and services and sustaining
groundwater aquifers, wetlands and other wildlife habitats.
The political dimension points at granting water stakeholders and citizens at large equal
democratic opportunities to influence and monitor political processes and outcomes. At both
national and international levels, marginalized citizens, such as indigenous people, women and
slum dwellers are rarely recognized as legitimate stakeholders in water related decision-
making.
Why governance is needed
The global pressures on water and related sectors around the world call for action:
Accessible and high quality freshwater is a limited and highly variable resource. OECD
projections show that 40% of the world’s population currently lives in water-stressed river
basins, and that water demand will rise by 55% by 2050 (OECD, 2012a).
Over-abstraction and contamination of aquifers worldwide will pose significant challenges to
food security, the health of ecosystems and safe drinking water supply, and increase the risk of
subsidence, among other consequences.
In 2050, 240 million people are expected to remain without access to clean water, and 1.4
billion without access to basic sanitation.
Water infrastructure in the OECD area is ageing, the technology is outdated and governance
systems are often ill-equipped to handle rising demand, environmental challenges, continued
urbanization, climate variability and water disasters.
Significant investment is required to renew and upgrade infrastructure, estimated at USD 6.7
trillion by 2050 for water supply and sanitation, while including a wider range of water-related
infrastructure could triple that bill by 2030 (OECD, 2015b).
The Organization of Water Governance
The Phases of Governance
The recent history of global water governance can be divided into four phases: phase 1:
transboundary institutionalization experiments (pre-1960); phase 2: global water policy
initiatives (1960–1992); phase 3: hybridization of policy initiatives (1992– 2003); and phase
4: attempt at system-wide coherence (2003–2012). These phases are briefly explained below.
Phase 1: Transboundary Institutionalization Experiments (pre-1960)
In the early phase of water governance, pre-1960, interstate treaties and transboundary water
commissions were established to govern transboundary water issues. Since 1873, the
International Law Association (ILA) (consisting of legal professionals) has been actively
engaged in promoting the development of water law. Hundreds of water basin agreements have
been concluded over the centuries (TFDD 2008), many establishing transboundary river
commissions.
Phase 2: Global Water Policy Initiatives (1960–1992)
In the second phase (1960–1992), many intergovernmental agencies that were in one way or
another linked to fresh water use undertook individual interventions in the water arena to
promote governance. UNESCO launched the International Hydrological Decade (1965–1975)
to promote the systematic collection of knowledge about hydrological systems, which led to
the establishment of the International Hydrological Programme at UNESCO in 1975. A few
attempts were made to create coherence in the water governance field through policy-making
via global declarations, beginning with the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment
in 1972 and culminating in detailed policy elaboration in Chapter 18 of Agenda 21 in 1992.
Phase 3: Hybridization of Policy Initiatives (1992–2003)
This body had the mandate to assess the lessons from completed dams and to draw policy
implications from past experiences (see the section in this chapter on “The Policy Arena,”
especially the subsection covering the years 1992 to 2003). The global water governance
vacuum also created the conditions for the development of the World Water Council in 1996,
an international multi-stakeholder forum aiming to stimulate knowledge, awareness,
commitment, and action. It does so primarily through the World Water Forum that has occurred
once every three years since 1997 in Morocco, Netherlands, Japan, Mexico, Istanbul, and
Marseille thus far.
Phase 4: Attempt at System-Wide Coherence (2003–2012)
The fourth phase (2003–2012) was characterized by a perceived need to create coherence in
the water field. In 2003, the UN established UN Water as a coordinating mechanism and in
2004 it established the Secretary General’s Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation. The
former replaced the UN ACC Subcommittee on Water Resources which was expected to
implement Agenda 21. UN Water aims to promote system-wide coherence on water issues and
improve the visibility and credibility of UN action on water. It has around 30 members from
UN agencies and programs, and a growing membership from non-UN bodies. With an annual
budget of about US$2 million, it has four programs: a joint monitoring program to oversee
progress towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals, a World Water Assessment
Programme which prepares the World Water Development Report; and Programmes on
Capacity Building and Advocacy and Communication.
Key Issues in Water Governance for the Twenty-first Century
There seems to be clearly an increasing need to have some degree of global governance on
water. Second, water issues are dispersed throughout the UN and non-UN system. While UN
Water tries to harmonize some of the activities of global actors on water issues, it has a
relatively small mandate, few resources, and little authority. The competing processes at global
level have led to different trajectories for governing water – a policy trajectory that UN Water
plays a role in, a law trajectory where legal instruments, arbitral and court awards, and legal
epistemic communities shape the debate, and a human rights trajectory that is being pushed in
the UN Human Rights Council and the General Assembly. There are defining moments which
have led to the birth of new ideas – the Helsinki Rules in 1966 and its articulation of equitable
sharing of water, the Dublin Declaration in 1992 and the birth of integrated water resources
management, as well as the notion of water as an economic good, and the UN General
Assembly Resolution of 2010 and the coming of age of the human right to water and sanitation.
The dispersed and competing governance trajectories, confusion exists regarding the
discourses that should help shape water governance. The liberalization discourse focuses on
private sector participation in water, confidential water contracts, trade, and investment law;
the good governance discourse emphasizes transparency, legitimacy, accountability, and
participation; the water governance discourse has evolved from the hydraulic mission with its
emphasis on optimizing water use through infrastructure development to equitable sharing of
water; the water management discourse is shifting from sectoral through integrated water
resource management to, possibly, adaptive management; the human rights discourse promotes
a focus on the human right to water and sanitation, and indigenous people’s rights;
environmental discourses are centered on sustainable development, environmental protection,
and ecosystem services; and the new scientific framing discourses focus, inter alia, on concepts
like virtual water trade. The legal arena is dense with bilateral and regional agreements that
either directly relate to water or are in fields that have consequences for water. This has not
been integrated into one comprehensive framework. Although this may or may not be
necessary, depending on one’s perspective on the need to centralize and formalize, a priority
now is the need to climate-proof transboundary water agreements in the coming years. Whether
one accepts the hypothesis that countries may be willing to go to war on water issues or not,
what is clear is that the misdistribution of water is likely to be a source of tension and create
human insecurity and calls for better water governance. Water is a critical resource for
countries, not just because of its role in meeting basic needs and its contribution to the national
economy, but also because of the significant cultural, religious, and aesthetic function of water.
The density of governance on water is both pluralistic and fragmented, embodying competing
value systems. Governance at the global level needs to co-develop with a comprehensive
multilevel system of governance that is coherent where possible while being contextually
relevant in the diversity of localities where it is to be implemented.
References
Chapagain, A.K., and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2004) Water footprints of nations, Value of Water
Research Report Series No.16, UNESCO-IHE, Delft.

FMENCNS, 2001. Water: a Key to Sustainable Development. International Conference on

Freshwater. The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear
Safety, Bonn.

Griggs, D.; Stafford-Smith, M.; Gaffney, O.; Rockström, J.; Öhman, M.C.; Shyamsundar, P.;
Noble, I. Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 2013, 495, 305–
307.

GWP (2000) Integrated water resources management. Global Water Partnership, Stockholm.
Hildering, A. (2004) International law, sustainable development and water management.
Eburon Academic
Publishers, Delft.

Hoekstra, A.Y. (2006) The global dimension of water governance: nine reasons for global
arrangements in order to cope with local water problems. Value of Water Research Report
Series No. 20, UNESCO-IHE, Delft.

OECD. 2015b. ‘OECD Principles on Water Governance’. Paris: OECD.

OECD and IEA. 2012. ‘Water for Energy: Is Energy Becoming a Thirstier Resource?’
In World Energy Outlook 2012. Paris: IEA.

Perkins, S.E.; Pitman, A.J.; Holbrook, N.J.; McAneney, J. Evaluation of the AR4 climate
models simulated daily maximum temperature, minimum temperature, and precipitation over
Australia using probability density functions. J. Clim. 2007, 20, 4356–4376.

Postel, S., and B. D. Richter. 1996. Rivers for life: managing water for people and nature.
Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Raskin, P., Gleick, P., Kirshen, P., Pontius, G., and Strezepek, K. (1997). Water futures:
assessment of longrange patterns and problems. Background document for Chapter 3 of the
Comprehensive Assessment of Freshwater Resources of the World. Boston, MA: Stockholm
Environment Institute.

Rogers, P., Bhatia, R., and Huber, A. (1998) Water as a social and economic good: how to put
the principle into practice. TAC Background Paper No.2, Global Water Partnership,
Stockholm.

Rogers, P.; Hall, A.W., 2003. Effective Water Governance. TEC Background Papers no.7,
Global Water Partnership, Stockholm.

Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database (TFDD). 2008. “Case Studies: Water Conflict
Resolution.” Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University.
UNCED (1992) Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Report on the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Annex I, Rio de Janeiro.

UNESCO, 2006. Water a Shared Responsibility. The UN World Water Development Report.
World Water Assessment Programme, UNESCO, Paris.

UNGA (1997) Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International

Watercourses. Official records of the United Nations General Assembly, fifty-first session,
supplement no. 49 (A/51/49).

UN-Water (2006) Water, a shared responsibility: The United Nations world water development
report 2. UNESCO Publishing, Paris / Berghahn Books, Oxford.

Van der Zaag, P., and Savenije, H.H.G. (2006) Water as an economic good: the value of pricing
and the failure of markets. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 19, UNESCO-IHE,
Delft, the Netherlands.

Vor¨ osmarty, Charles J., Peter McIntyre, Mark O. Gessner ¨ et al. 2010. “Global Threats to
Human Water Security and River Biodiversity.” Nature, 467: 555–561.
WCED (1987) our common future. World Commission on Environment and Development,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.

WSSD (2002) Plan of implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg.

WWC, 2000. Final Report: Second World Water Forum (The Hague). World Water Council,
Marseille.

Zehnder, A.J.B., Yang, H. and Schertenleib, R. (2003) Water issues: the need for action at
different levels.Aquatic sciences 65 (1): 1-20.