By Jerome Casagrande

As Israel and Syria begin the latest round of negotiations to bring peace to the Middle East, one recalls the words spoken by President Anwar Sadat of Egypt in 1979 after he signed the historic accord that brought peace between Israel and Egypt. "The only matter that could take Egypt to war again," said Sadat "is water."

King Hussein of Jordan echoed Sadat's theme in 1990 when he proclaimed that water was the only issue that could take his country to war with Israel. More fundamental than even the most profound religious and cultural differences, water – or more accurately, a lack of it – has often brought nations to armed conflict.¹  

In 1995, the vice president of the World Bank, Ismail Serageldin predicted, "The wars of the next century will be over water." Will he be right?

Using It Up

Humans use an enormous amount of water. We dam rivers, pump groundwater and siphon lakes and rivers to grow our food, quench our thirst, spur our industry. We use our rivers, lakes and oceans intentionally and unintentionally as dumping grounds for our waste (see table below). We fell the forests and pave the land, reducing the soil's ability to retain water – so more water flows to the sea and becomes unavailable for irrigation, industrial use or drinking, not to mention unavailable to the plants and animals with whom we share the land.

Around the world, our contamination of aquatic ecosystems is enormous. Consider the following statistics: One billion pounds of weed and bug killers are used in the United States each year, most of it running off into the nation's water systems. One-fifth of China's river water is too polluted for irrigation, much less for drinking. Three-fourths of Poland's rivers are so contaminated by chemicals, sewage, and agricultural runoff that their water is unfit for even industrial use. 75 percent of Russia's lake and river water is unsafe to drink. In the developing world, approximately 75 percent of industrial wastes are dumped untreated into surface waters. The high-tech industry – once believed to be relatively clean – uses and pollutes vast quantities of water, as evidenced by the 150 groundwater contamination sites throughout Silicon Valley.2

According to The New York Times, more than half of all accessible water on the planet has been diverted for the use of one species of the millions on the planet-humans.³   Thirty-seven percent of freshwater fish in the United States are at risk of extinction because of the agricultural chemicals we allow to run off into our streams and underground aquifers.

The loss of biological diversity in the Great Lakes – where less than 3 percent of the shorelines are suitable for swimming, drinking or supporting any aquatic life – has been called "catastrophic" by the Canadian Wildlife Federation.

Elsewhere, the problem is just as bleak. In Asia, 80 percent of China's major rivers are so degraded they no longer support fish. In Egypt the Aswan dam caused the number of commercially harvested fish to drop by nearly two-thirds.⁴  

Now our use and abuse of water threaten our own livelihoods, most directly by reducing our ability to grow food. In short, water equals food. More specifically, about 1,000 tons of water is needed to grow one ton of grain.

Depletion of underground aquifers (taking more water out of the ground than is naturally replenished) in China, India, North Africa, Saudi Arabia and the United States exceeds 160 billion tons a year. That translates to approximately 160 million tons of grain – or half the American grain harvest, or enough to feed about 480 million people. In other words, 480 million people are being fed from a source that is not sustainable.⁵  

Depletion of surface water creates similar scenarios. The Yellow River – the "Cradle of Chinese Civilization" – has run dry 20 times in the last 28 years, primarily because of heavy human claims on its flow, including water supplies for 140 million people and their industries. In 1997, the river went dry for a startling 226 days. Ecosystem damage aside, the drying up of the Yellow River reduced crop production in 1997 by 8.5 million tons – or enough grain to feed about 25 million people.⁶  

With an increasingly accepted global emphasis on economic efficiency rather than equity, we are beginning to see water "flow uphill to money."⁷   For example, when a major drought hit Indonesia in 1994, wells across the country ran dry but Jakarta's golf courses, supported with tourist dollars, continued to receive 1,000 cubic meters per course each day.

The food implications for the poor are enormous. As water is increasingly diverted from agriculture to higher-return economic uses (such as booming industry and tourism), food supply will dwindle and go only to those who can pay for it. This straightforward example of market economics has been recognized by China, which recently stated that it no longer places a priority on food self-sufficiency.

Why? Because China's extraordinary industrial and urban growth requires vast quantities of water and generates vast quantities of capital that can be used to import grain. As China, the United States and other economic powerhouses are fed and watered, one must wonder how those without sufficient economic resources – the billions of the world's poor – will sustain themselves in a coming era of growing water scarcity and increased grain prices.

Comprehensive Solutions by Social Entrepreneurs

This issue of Changemakers looks at three social entrepreneurs who are working at a number of levels to change the way their societies manage and conserve their water resources. Zephenia Phiri Maseko of Zimbabwe, Jacek Bozek of Poland and Laxman Singh of India (whose profile will appear on March 15) are providing comprehensive solutions to water scarcity and compelling alternatives to abusive utilization of aquatic ecosystems.

If water wars are indeed to be averted, individuals, nations and groups of nations will need to follow the principles demonstrated in the work and thinking of these three social entrepreneurs. Such action, combined with a high degree of international cooperation, may yet prove Serageldin of the World Bank wrong.

Revaluing Water and Nature

One cause of our problems is that water and the ecosystems where it is most bountiful are regularly undervalued by our economic system. According to the water expert Sandra Postel, farmers who receive water from government-built projects rarely pay more than 20 percent of the real cost. The Indian government, for example, had recovered less than 10 percent of the total recurring costs for major and medium sized irrigation projects it had built by the mid 1980s. In Tunisia and Jordan, two of the most water-starved countries in the world, farmers pay only five cents and three cents, respectively, per cubic meter of water.⁸  

Not only is water itself undervalued, but entire ecosystems are undervalued. Beginning in the 1930s, the American government went on a spending spree to tame the Missouri River, building dikes and dams, in the belief that doing so would bring as much as 20 million tons of cargo down the river annually. Instead, cargo flow peaked at a mere 3.3 million tons in 1977. Twenty years later, even that small number was cut in half and cargo generated only $15 million in economic benefit.

In being tamed, the "Big Muddy" lost 90 percent of its sandbars, 80 percent of its aquatic food and two-thirds of its famous catfish. Twenty percent of the species native to the Missouri have been identified as endangered, threatened or of special concern by federal and state experts.

Nonetheless, riverside recreation on and along the Missouri – including fishing, hunting, swimming, and canoeing – produces $87 million in benefits annually. Studies suggest that if the ecosystems destroyed by the river-taming could be restored, economic benefits from tourism and recreation would increase further.⁹   The conclusion is clear: the economic value of the river ecosystem was greater when the Missouri was untamed than it is with the river ecosystem severely altered by man.

Jacek Bozek, of Poland, is fighting his government's plans to dam and tame the Vistula River – what Bozek calls Europe's "last preserved natural river." One of Bozek's primary strategies is to demonstrate the economic value of the Vistula in its unaltered state. By building campgrounds, bicycle paths and areas for rafting and canoeing and by encouraging the construction of eco-friendly hotels and restaurants, he is trying to demonstrate that left intact, the river ecosystem can provide a bounty for its residents.

In India, Laxman Singh recognizes the important role that trees and forests play in improving the earth's water-retaining capabilities and halting desertification. Accordingly, among the many policies he has encouraged is one in which communities impose a fine upon the cutting of trees. The effect of the fine is to make clear to the potential tree-feller the true value of the standing tree.

Integrating Conservation Into Spiritual and Cultural Traditions

The Zimbabwean social entrepreneur Phiri is described as "a deeply spiritual man, [who] is driven by a commitment to honoring and conserving land and water for its spiritual value. To him, faith in God translates into a deep respect for the bounty that can be drawn from nature. . . . His work extends from this set of personal values, and he encourages others to respect the soil and water as the source of life." Phiri, who harvests and channels water back into the soil so that it may replenish the groundwater, tells other farmers that they must "commit themselves to the soil."

Phiri and the other social entrepreneurs profiled this month realize that we are part of, not separate from, Nature. While Phiri emphasizes an individual spiritual connection with Nature, Bozek and Singh aggressively integrate water conservation into the culture of their regions.

Bozek allies himself with cultural and social groups to transmit his river-ecosystem conservation message. He also encourages street theatre that spreads a conservationist message. He has spread "Vistula Day" – a festival to celebrate the River and promote eco-friendly water management – to more than 50 Polish cities.

In India, Singh has worked in over 80 villages to revive the oral traditions of water management, in particular on Devyuthan Gyaras – the day marked by the tradition of worshiping ponds.

Putting the Control of Resources in Local Hands

In the Thar desert in Rajasthan, in western India, communities historically had control over their water resources. The spectrum of water management systems in the desert reflected the diversity of the communities and had enabled them to thrive for hundreds of years. Local control and management of water and forests was lost, however, as the public water supply came under control of the central government and management was transferred away from community leaders.

The result of the centralization: drought and water shortages. By 1991, the village of Laporiya, for example, had barren pasturelands and very poor agricultural fields. Two reservoirs in the village were silted up and the water level in the irrigation and drinking water wells were some 60 feet below the surface. Forty percent of the population had migrated to cities and towns.

Singh recognized the importance of getting control back into local hands. The water management systems he has developed and spread to 80 villages have been built and largely financed by residents and it is village governing councils that maintain the system. The result has been increased pastureland, a rising water table and increased availability of water for irrigation.

Bozek, in his war to save the Vistula, is essentially waging a battle on the importance of this principle – that locals must have control over their resources. According to Bozek himself, one of his primary accomplishments has been to move the water management debate to the local level in Poland – a country where the state makes such decisions and local communities have little idea of how they will be affected or how to participate. Ultimately, the fate of the Vistula hangs upon the government's respect for the concept of local control.

Phiri too recognizes the principle upon which Bozek and Singh are operating. "Once it is my asset," he says of land and other resources, "I will keep it with strong care."

Giving the People the Means to Address Their Needs

While ultimately the solution to our water difficulties cannot be merely a technical one, part of the solution must be technical. Currently, we waste a lot of water. In the developing world, an estimated 60 to 75 percent of irrigation water never reaches the crop. In Manila, 57 percent of municipal water is lost through leaks and theft.

Even in Britain, one quarter of the water that enters the distribution network is lost due to broken pipes and other problems.¹⁰   So, while we do need human-focused solutions, we also must deliver the most efficient water management technologies into the hands of all humans.

Singh and Phiri specialize in techniques by which farmers and communities can manage their water and other resources. For both men, the source of the technical means of water management has been indigenous traditions lost to "modern development." Singh talks about "awakening the [water conservation] expertise within" and Phiri attributes the techniques that he is offering African farmers to lessons from his father, recollections from school, knowledge of traditional farming and "creative experimentation."

Social entrepreneurs also supply tools in addition to technical means. Singh has organized funds in a number of Rajasthani villages to maintain the resources generated through village work. He has also established two centers to sustain networks of young technicians and to provide training programs.

Bozek sought out methods of river conservation and now is sharing these with others. Commenting on the training programs on water-management alternatives in which he participated, he says, "It was essential to learn about good examples [of sustainable development] rather than just negative answers." His organization also delivers to communities the expertise they need to make conservation a reality – scientists, biological surveyors and contractors.

Re-writing the Rules of the Game

Finally, although they have not always found the way to do it, these social entrepreneurs recognize the importance of re-writing the rules that govern our use of water and other natural resources.

In Poland, Bozek is a voice for riverside farmers, who will lose their access to river water for irrigation, and for the many species that live in the Vistula, who would be threatened by the construction of the dam. Thanks to Bozek's leadership, over 50,000 people have signed a petition opposing the dam, but Poland still lacks the institutions to ensure that the opinions of the public are given proportionate consideration to those of the dam-promoters. If he succeeds in stopping the dam, Bozek must hope that his victory is somehow institutionalized in laws or regulations or legal precedence.

Similarly, Singh and Phiri recognize that local management of water resources must be institutionalized in India and land tenure must be made secure in Zimbabwe. If not, the next advocate for those who stand to lose from environmental degradation – the successors of Bozek, Singh, and Phiri – will be forced to tread the same steps as their forebears.