managing uncertainty
References to global climate change policy at World Water Week focused on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations process. Perhaps the most was the failure of water issues to gain traction at the UNFCCC meeting in Copenhagen last December (referred to as COP15). Indeed, last year’s climate change sessions focused strongly on messaging in advance of COP15, with the clearest expression of this sentiment in the “Stockholm Message to Copenhagen,” the
official 2009 World Water Week policy statement. Hopes ran high that policymakers in Denmark would see effective, sustainable water management as a critical component to adjusting to climate change impacts. Since December 2009, however, COP15 has been judged by many as a failure because no comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions agreement was achieved (though many who have been long involved in these negotiations warned that an agreement on climate mitigation or adaptation will never be simple or fast to achieve and the most important failures from Copenhagen came from overly high expectations). A significant minority in the water community feel that COP15 was an even greater failure because “our” 2009 messages, the fruit of extensive internal debate, were given little or no hearing in Copenhagen and seemingly had no impact onthe official negotiations. Perhaps in reaction, others felt that the UNFCCC was irrelevant to practical adaptation action in water management. Hallways and meeting rooms in Stockholm in 2010 were filled with questions such as: Why did the water community not have a greater impact in COP15? Is high-level climate change policy relevant to climate-smart water management? Should the water sector continue to engage in global-level climate change discourse and what should be the strategy for future global policy dialogs? Despite often heated debate, no clear consensus was arrived at on these topics.
Connecting the climate change and water communities
A related but distinct theme to UNFCCC engagement was the strong sense that the climate change and water “communities” are seen as both separate and not effectively communicating with one another. The water community consists of people and organisations directly involved in water management policy and practice. The climate change community consists of individuals and organisations involved in national and international climate change policy (often emphasising climate change mitigation), development banks and aid agencies that fund work explicitly referenced as “climate change” projects, and the small but growing number of groups engaged in climate change adaptation. For the most part, the water community views the climate change community as more powerful and dominant and either unaware or dismissive of the water community. The Weeks discussions focused on how to bridge the perceived gap between these groups. The climate change community tends to view “water” as a narrow set of issues, with the energy, forest carbon, health and sanitation, manufacturing, and agriculture sectors being seen as distinct from the “water sector.” Water in this view is often limited to surface water resources in lakes and rivers. The water community, however, sees water issues as spanning a wide range of sectors, with the implication that effective water management should be viewed more holistically by emphasising a wide range of hydrological processes (e.g., precipitation, tropical storms, soil moisture, groundwater, surface water). Water infrastructure can either facilitate or hamper effective adaptation, and water is often embedded in goods and services (virtual water). From this perspective, water management is the most important tool to enable human adaptation to emerging climate change impacts.
official 2009 World Water Week policy statement. Hopes ran high that policymakers in Denmark would see effective, sustainable water management as a critical component to adjusting to climate change impacts. Since December 2009, however, COP15 has been judged by many as a failure because no comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions agreement was achieved (though many who have been long involved in these negotiations warned that an agreement on climate mitigation or adaptation will never be simple or fast to achieve and the most important failures from Copenhagen came from overly high expectations). A significant minority in the water community feel that COP15 was an even greater failure because “our” 2009 messages, the fruit of extensive internal debate, were given little or no hearing in Copenhagen and seemingly had no impact onthe official negotiations. Perhaps in reaction, others felt that the UNFCCC was irrelevant to practical adaptation action in water management. Hallways and meeting rooms in Stockholm in 2010 were filled with questions such as: Why did the water community not have a greater impact in COP15? Is high-level climate change policy relevant to climate-smart water management? Should the water sector continue to engage in global-level climate change discourse and what should be the strategy for future global policy dialogs? Despite often heated debate, no clear consensus was arrived at on these topics.
Connecting the climate change and water communities
A related but distinct theme to UNFCCC engagement was the strong sense that the climate change and water “communities” are seen as both separate and not effectively communicating with one another. The water community consists of people and organisations directly involved in water management policy and practice. The climate change community consists of individuals and organisations involved in national and international climate change policy (often emphasising climate change mitigation), development banks and aid agencies that fund work explicitly referenced as “climate change” projects, and the small but growing number of groups engaged in climate change adaptation. For the most part, the water community views the climate change community as more powerful and dominant and either unaware or dismissive of the water community. The Weeks discussions focused on how to bridge the perceived gap between these groups. The climate change community tends to view “water” as a narrow set of issues, with the energy, forest carbon, health and sanitation, manufacturing, and agriculture sectors being seen as distinct from the “water sector.” Water in this view is often limited to surface water resources in lakes and rivers. The water community, however, sees water issues as spanning a wide range of sectors, with the implication that effective water management should be viewed more holistically by emphasising a wide range of hydrological processes (e.g., precipitation, tropical storms, soil moisture, groundwater, surface water). Water infrastructure can either facilitate or hamper effective adaptation, and water is often embedded in goods and services (virtual water). From this perspective, water management is the most important tool to enable human adaptation to emerging climate change impacts.
