Water Management

Assignment on

Water as a commodity

Course No. – AQ-504 Course Title - Water Management in Aquaculture Submitted To - Dr. Nilam Saharan Sr. Scientist Submitted By – vivek shrivastava M.F.Sc. Aquaculture Reg.No. AQ-241

CONTENT 1.

INTRODUCTION

2.

AQUACULTURE ISSUES

3.

WATER (REARING) ENVIRONMENT AND WATER USE

4.

WATER USE

5.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

6.

GLOBAL WATER PROBLEM

i.

Global Shortage

ii.

Basic facts

iii.

Water Access Policy: Following Neoliberal Ideology

iv.

Privatization vs. Democratic Accountability

v.

Water: A Human Right or A Commodity?

vi.

Water And Environmental Issues

vii.

Climate Change And Water Security

viii.

Future Wars over Water?

ix.

international Agreements And Action

7.

CONCLUSION

8.

REFERENCES

Introduction About 70% of the earth's surface is covered in water, but 97% of it is saltwater, which is unfit for human use. Saltwater cannot be used for drinking, crop irrigation or most industrial uses. Of the remaining 3% of the worlds water resources, only about 1% is readily available for human consumption.

Aquaculture water use is water associated with raising organisms that live in water— such as finfish and shellfish—for food, restoration, conservation, or sport. Aquaculture production occurs under controlled feeding, sanitation, and harvesting procedures primarily in ponds, flow-through raceways, and, to a lesser extent, cages, net pens, and closedrecirculation tanks. All withdrawals were considered self-supplied. Only freshwater withdrawals were compiled as part of the total. Aquaculture combines the fish-farming activities of the former livestock subcategory animal specialties and the fish-hatchery activities of the commercial category .

Aquaculture issues For 2000, the estimate of aquaculture water use for the United States was based on estimates of freshwater withdrawals for aquaculture in 19 States, rather than on estimates from all States. These 19 States included the 8 States with the largest water withdrawals for animal specialties in 1995, and 11 other States in which aquaculture water-use data were collected as part of a broader State water-use program for 2000. Most of the water withdrawals for animal specialties during 1995 were for aquaculture, with a small amount of water primarily used for watering horses. The 19 States that reported for 2000 accounted for 94 percent of the total withdrawals for animal-specialties water use during 1995. During

1995, withdrawals for animal specialties accounted for a small percentage of the total water use, less than 1 percent of the total withdrawals for all categories. For 2000, the quantity of freshwater withdrawn for aquaculture was an estimated 3,700 Mgal/d, or 4,150 thousand acre-feet per year. Maryland reported saline withdrawals of 3.09 Mgal/d, which are not listed in the tables or included in the totals. Surface water was the source for about 71 percent of the withdrawals for this category. Aquaculture withdrawals were nearly 1 percent of total water withdrawals and nearly 2 percent of total withdrawals for all categories excluding thermoelectric power. Idaho used the most water for aquaculture, about one-half of the total reported. Idaho's source of water was almost exclusively surface water, and represented 73 percent of the total surface-water withdrawals for aquaculture. Mississippi, Arkansas, California, Louisiana, and Utah combined accounted for 86 percent of the ground-water withdrawals for aquaculture. Several sources of information were used to estimate withdrawals for aquaculture. Some estimates of aquaculture water use were derived from State permits that reported water withdrawals or return flows for aquaculture facilities. The USEPA Permit Compliance System database also was a source of return-flow data that were used to estimate water withdrawals. The State Offices of the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service or the Cooperative Extension Service sometimes maintained records for a State on pond acreage for fish farms and sometimes on the rate of water lost to evaporation for the ponds. WATER (REARING) ENVIRONMENTS AND WATER USE Each aquatic species has specific environmental requirements. The various salmonids (salmon and trout) for example require cold (50-60° F), highly oxygenated waters (oxygen greater than 6 mg/L), but the water can be fresh or salt water. Catfish are grown in fresh water but can tolerate a wide variety of water temperatures growing best at water temperatures above 75°F with oxygen concentrations above 4 mg/L. Marine mollusks, such as oysters, and crustaceans, such as shrimp, must be grown in water where salt (NaCl) levels are higher and where the water is saturated with oxygen. In all cases, waters used in aquaculture production must be free of compounds that could contaminate or taint the flesh. These waters must obviously be free of anything that could cause aquatic animal mortality. Aqua culturists strive to protect their rearing waters from contaminates. As part of industry-developed HACCP programs, rearing areas and influent waters are tested for pesticides or other contaminants. Because the environment of many aquiculture animals is controlled and protected from contaminants, animals raised under these conditions are typically free of contaminants. FDA records as well as university research surveys of aquiculture animals demonstrates farm raised aquatic animals are generally free of harmful chemicals. Aquaculture is a water dependent industry. Aqua culturists must be good stewards of water use, our success depends on it. The FDA instituted a mandatory seafood processors safety program to ensure that the US consumer continues to receive safe wholesome seafood. This program relies upon a

HACCP plan and is enforced by seafood processors but inspected by FDA. The National Aquaculture Association (NAA) endorses this program and has been instrumental in developing various aquaculture producer quality assurance programs. Environmental quality is identified in these plans as an important factor needed to ensure wholesome aquatic animals.

Water Use Another reason for aquaculture’s environmental sustainability is its minimal use or consumption of water. Globally and within the US, water is a precious resource. Minimal consumption is important because conflicts over availability are expected to increase dramatically over the next several decades. Contrary to common perception, aquaculture has minimal water consumption. Water used by aquaculture operations is generally returned back to the environment after some brief period of use. For example, in Idaho, where most US trout production occurs, gravity fed, naturally flowing spring water is diverted into cement raceways holding trout. The water flows through the raceways after which it is treated to remove solid wastes and then discharged into the Snake River. The water is not consumed or used up in the production process nor does it deplete the aquifer. Western states rely upon the prior appropriation doctrine that stipulates that the individual claiming use of water first in time will be able to use the water before a more junior water right holder can use the same water. These water rights are called usufructuary rights indicating that while the water belongs to the state, the water can be rightfully used for beneficial purposes by a private individual. The state determines validity of water rights and otherwise manages use of this resource. The water must be put to beneficial use for the usufructuary right to be maintained. Similarly, net pens commonly used for salmon production in the northeast or northwest US do not consume water. Oysters and clams simply filter the water that passes over them. In many states, aquaculture has been legally classified as a beneficial, nonconsumptive, use of water. In some aquaculture situations water is indeed consumed but this is usually minimal and is due to evaporation. Catfish ponds can lose water during the summer due to evaporation. This water is replaced by precipitation throughout the year so that in any one year, a net gain or loss of water might occur depending upon prevailing climatic conditions. Appropriate pond water level management can minimize the need for adding water. Some aqua culturists discharge their effluent onto fields for irrigation or nutrient control, thus integrating well with existing agriculture. This practice is minimal in most areas because there is insufficient land for such discharge or the cost of pumping the water is prohibitive. Aquaculturists using semi-closed or closed reticulating systems often need to add new fresh water to ensure appropriate rearing environments and to replace water lost to evaporation. These intensive production systems are generally more expensive to operate and more technically demanding than raceway, pond or net pen culture systems.

Indicators

[Country Profiles — India ] Data

Year

Source

Water Resources Total annual water resources (AWR)

477

cu.km

2007

1

Water from international rivers as share of annual water resources

75

%

2007

1

32,175

cu.m

2007

1

13.2

%

1996

1

Total

0.9

%

2000

1

Domestic

2

%

2000

1

Industry

1

%

2000

1

Agriculture

98

%

2000

1

296

cu.m

2000

1

Total resources per capita Dam capacity as percentage of AWR Water Use Total annual water withdrawals as share of AWR

Water withdrawals per capita

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The US aquaculture industry is developing in an unprecedented environmental and food safety climate. In many respects, this helps ensure the aquaculture industry is environmentally sustainable, while still providing needed rural employment and income. This situation also places a unique challenge upon aquaculture because it must experiment with new species production techniques under close scrutiny. Most other forms of agriculture developed over the past 200 to 300 years and became profitable prior to current constraints. Nevertheless, aquaculture is thriving because it can fit the environmental, social, and economic needs of the communities where it is located. Clean Water Act (CWA) programs provide regulatory oversight to ensure discharges from aquaculture facilities are compatible with the environment. Because many forms of aquaculture are considered point sources, each source must be covered by a National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Discharge permits are developed by a state’s environmental regulatory agency or by the EPA if the state does not have permitting primacy. Permits developed by EPA must receive a state’s approval (401 certification) indicating the federally permitted discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of the CWA and state water quality standards will not be violated. It is incumbent on the state or the federal government to adequately enforce existing environmental requirements since these is often adequate to meet environmental quality standards. Concerns about human impacts on water quality are prevalent throughout the US. Many water bodies (not impacted by aquaculture operations) throughout the US have been declared “water quality limited” signifying failure of a water body to satisfy water quality standards and attainment of full designated beneficial uses. For these water bodies, a total maximum daily load (TMDL) is developed. The TMDL attempts to limit pollutants from both point and non-point sources depending upon what a particular water body can assimilate and still meet standards. This is called the water bodies assimilative capacity. Assimilative capacity is determined by a number of physical, chemical and biological factors. Physical factors include river or lake water volume, flow rate management, and sediment volumes. Chemical factors may include nutrient levels (such as phosphorus) and toxic chemicals from industrial discharges. Biological factors include plant composition and abundance, and fish composition. Because these characteristics are peculiar to each water body, the assimilative capacity for each is determined on a site specific basis. National standards must reflect the site specific nature, the integration of these processes and allow considerable flexibility in implementation. Maintenance and improvement of water quality to meet the fishable and swimmable goals of the Clean Water Act require everyone’s involvement. This is in recognition that both point (e.g. factories) and non-point sources (e.g. farms and other diffuse pollution sources) as well as hydro modifications such as dams and channelization, all impact water quality and the ecosystem. Recent presidential initiatives (i.e., the Clean Water Initiative) identify non-point pollutant sources as a significant cause of reduced water quality in 70 % of impaired rivers and streams, and 49 % of lakes. Food safety efforts may also benefit the environment. The FDA has recently (Dec. 1997) instituted a mandatory processor seafood safety program. This program relies on the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) process to help ensure all seafood’s are wholesome for consumers. As part of this program, aquaculturists must ensure their use of therapeutants for aquatic animals are safe. The FDA also carefully scrutinizes drugs to ensure they are safe for the environment before they are approved for use. This is in compliance with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Any water treatments or algaecides used by an aquaculturists must be approved by the EPA and are regulated under the NPDES permit system. Compounds approved for use by US aquaculturists are listed in the document “Guide to Drug, Vaccine and Pesticide Use in Aquaculture” written in 1994 by the Quality Assurance Working Group of the federal Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture. This document is currently being revised

Global water problem 1 Globalshortage Rapid industrialization and increasing agricultural use have contributed to worldwide water shortages. Areas that have experienced water shortages include China, Egypt, India, Israel, Pakistan, Mexico, parts of Africa and the United States (Colorado, California, Las Vegas and the East Coast), to name but a few, Pollution also highlights the need for clean water. In the U.S., the dead zone off the Gulf Coast highlights the impact of fertilizer runoff, and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), an additive in unleaded gasoline, can be found in well water from California to Maryland. Overseas, highly publicized incidents in Russia, China and elsewhere demonstrate that pollution isn't limited to the West. Of course, fouled water supplies further limit the amount of fresh water available for human use

2 . Basic facts • Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water. • 2.6 billion people lack basic sanitation • Lack of water is closely related to poverty: o Almost two in three people lacking access to clean water survive on less

than $2 a day, with one in three living on less than $1 a day o More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day. • Some 1.8 million children die each year as a result of diarrhea • Lack of water means lost school time for many children. • 443 million school days are lost each year from water-related illness • Access

to piped water into the household averages about 85% for the wealthiest 20% of the population, compared with 25% for the poorest 20%. • 1.8 billion people who have access to a water source within 1 kilometer, but not in their house or yard, consume around 20 liters per day. In the United Kingdom the average person uses more than 50 liters of water a day flushing toilets (where average daily water usage is about 150 liters a day. The highest average water use in the world is in the US, at 600 liters day.) • Close to half of all people in developing countries suffer at any given time from a health problem caused by water and sanitation deficits • Lack of water means women spend many hours collecting water every day, sometimes from many miles away. • To

these human costs can be added the massive economic waste associated with the water and sanitation deficit.… The costs associated with health spending, productivity losses and labour diversions … are greatest in some of the poorest countries. Sub-Saharan Africa

loses about 5% of GDP, or some $28.4 billion annually, a figure that exceeds total aid flows and debt relief to the region in 2003. 400 million children (1 in 5 from the developing world) have no access to safe water. 1.4 million Children will die each year from lack of access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation A mere 12 percent of the world’s population uses 85 percent of its water, and these 12 percent do not live in the Third World. “Already, corporations own or operate water systems across the globe that brings in about $200 billion a year. Yet they serve only about 7 percent of the world’s population, leaving a potentially vast market untapped.

3. A Water Management Crisis Leading to Lack of Access to Safe Water for Much of the World Already some one third of the world’s population is living in either water-scarce, or water-short areas. It is predicted that climate change and population growth will take this number to one half of humanity. Yet, as Maude Barlow has commented, it is not necessarily over-population causing water shortages: “12 percent of the world’s population uses 85 percent of its water, and these 12 percent do not live in the Third World.” The United Nations appears to concur: We reject this [Malthusian perspective that global water problems are a problem of scarcity and population growth]. The availability of water is a concern for some countries. But the scarcity at the heart of the global water crisis is rooted in power, poverty and inequality, not in physical availability. Indian scientist and activist, Vandana Shiva noted in a documentary that the water crisis is a human-created crisis only in the last two or so decades. In other words, it is not so much of a water shortage crisis, but a water management crisis. That documentary was World without Water, from True Vision Productions broadcast by Britain’s mainstream media channel, Channel 4 on April 29, 2006. The main reason for the water crisis, the documentary implied, is the commoditization of water. By promoting water as a commodity, this has led to increased control of water by multinational corporations. In turn, there has been increased fear that the poor are shut out, because the MNC’s main responsibility is to shareholders and to increase profit. As a result, though there may be many people in terms of market access, many people are too poor to afford it. The World Bank, IMF and others have encouraged countries around the world to privatize water access in the hope for increased efficiency as well as follow other policies such as removal of subsidies for such provisions. In doing so, the poor have found themselves being shut out as prices have risen beyond affordability. The documentary traced the struggles of

•A

family in Bolivia living just behind a water plant, unable to afford the 9-month salary equivalent connection charge [highlighting the issue of access inequality and water access privatization]; • Poor Indian farmers in Rajasthan facing water shortages and worse because the Coca Cola company had taken so much water from nearby wells and aquifers [highlighting the issue of need versus luxury]; • Tanzanian people’s struggles with water privatization and even the struggles of the poor in the world’s richest country, the United States [highlighting water resource commoditization and privatization versus water as a human right with universal access]. Around the world, the documentary noted, water access issues are reaching crisis point, similar to the ones they highlighted in detail.

4. Water Access Policy: Following Neoliberal Ideology The documentary then turned to the question of where the idea of privatization of such a vital resource came from. In short, Neoliberlism—as also detailed on this site’s section on free trade and globalization—was pushed by Britain’s Margaret Thatcher, USA’s Ronald Reagan and others, around the world. The World Bank and other international institutions took on this ideology, and encouraged privatization of most resources. In other words, they attempted to put a price on everything, even if it was not appropriate (e.g. health, education, and, possibly, water, amongst other services). But it was not just conservative political parties pushing such ideologies. As also noted on this site’s neoliberalism section, economic ideology and political ideologies, though extremely related are also different in various ways. As a result, Britain’s Labor Party for example, also changed to become “New” Labour and supported privatization around the world. In Tanzania and elsewhere, they have used foreign aid budgets to pay for privatization (where British companies benefit) and even fund television advertising and popular songs that promote privatization. Furthermore, pressure is put on third world countries to privatize with favorable terms for private companies (including full guarantees in case of problems (i.e. bail out by the poor country’s tax payers). This again questions our common perceptions of corruption. Separate from the above-mentioned documentary, The World Development Movement campaign organization (WDM) reported in 2005 that “—making it less likely that clean water will ever get to the poorest people. And while poor people lose out, a group of big UK companies are profiting from this aid.” This, the organization says is being done through four main ways: 1. Expensive consultancies (which a lot of that aid money goes to paying for and these groups have a vested interest in pushing for privatization); 2. Public relations campaigns (to get the poor to accept privatization of water); 3. Direct funding for privatization; and 4. Via conditions imposed by the IMF and World Bank.

Predictably then, price hikes have been witnessed around the world, accompanied by public protests. The documentary noted the irony of the efficiency that private companies were supposed to bring to the provision and functioning of this service. One of the various examples given was where people had their water cut off but were still billed for many months for water they could never have used. Intermediary water sellers in Tanzania, for example, found business to be booming, because there were so many poor people unable to afford the privatized service and turned to them instead, and they also hiked up prices. Around the world, stories have been similar. Many poor people have also ended up working even more than they already do, unnecessarily. In Tanzania, the documentary highlighted the courage of the Prime Minister Edward Lowassa, who after 18 months, became disillusioned by the British and World Bankencouraged privatization. He complained to the documentary that the multinational corporations were only interested in profit. While the MNCs said that independent reviews were positive, the documentary revealed those same reports actually showed otherwise. Senior British staffs were told to leave. “Think again before you privatizes [water],” President Lowassa warned; It is “dangerous.”

5. Privatization vs. Democratic Accountability of Management of a Fundamental Resource The above-mentioned documentary noted that the World Bank argues that the problem is not privatization itself, but that privatization is not being practiced properly. Yet, the market-based paradigm for such a vital resource has come under question. The earliermentioned WDM report as well as the documentary noted that the goals of a responsible government (universal access), and the goals of a private company (profit, typically by providing access to those who can pay) implies that private sector efficiency for profit may not mean that same efficiency will lead to universal access. Certainly, there are cases where markets have provided innovative ideas and efficiency in management. This typically requires a market where people that can pay for the service. For universal access, however, (which includes people who may not be able to pay, for a variety of reasons, and may require subsidies or assistance), a solely market-based privatization may be inappropriate. The United Nations Human Development Report, focusing on water, weighs in on this too, and adds: Some privatization programs have produced positive results. But the overall record is not encouraging. From Argentina to Bolivia, and from the Philippines to the United States, the conviction that the private sector offers a “magic bullet” for unleashing the equity and efficiency needed to accelerate progress towards water for all has proven to be misplaced. While these past failures of water concessions do not provide evidence that the private sector has no role to play, they do point to the need for greater caution, regulation and a commitment to equity in public-private partnerships.

Two specific aspects of water provision in countries with low coverage rates caution against an undue reliance on the private sector. 1. The water sector has many of the characteristics of a natural monopoly. In the absence of a strong regulatory capacity to protect the public interest through the rules on pricing and investment, there are dangers of monopolistic abuse. 2. In countries with high levels of poverty among unnerved populations, public finance is a requirement for extended access regardless of whether the provider is public or private. For poor countries, as argued elsewhere on this web site, pursuing neoliberal ideology too early goes counter to experiences from history; today’s wealthy countries did not prosper following these policies. They only used these policies once a market-based economy was already established and society had sufficiently developed. Earlier in 2001, the Institute for Food and Development Policy (also known as Food First) suggested that economic globalization is largely to blame for this water crisis. As if to turn around the World Bank’s point that privatization is not being practiced properly and more of it is needed, Food First counters that it is democracy not being practiced properly, so we need more democracy and democratic accountability, rather than less. The increased commoditization of a basic necessity and a public service “reduces the involvement of citizens in water management decisions.” Furthermore, These companies argue that privatizing water is the best way to deliver it safely to a thirsty world. This is yet another area of potential disagreement. It is true that governments have done an abysmal job of protecting water within their boundaries. However, the answer is not to hand this precious resource over to transnational corporations who have escaped nation-state laws and live by no international law other than business-friendly trade agreements. The answer is to demand that governments begin to take their role seriously and establish full water protection regimes based on watershed management and conservation.

6. Water: A Human Right Or A Commodity? The fundamental question this documentary raises then is whether water is a fundamental human right, or a commodity; a privileged service that you can only access if you can afford it. Article 25 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights—the premier human rights doctrine that practically all nations have signed up to—notes the following: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of ... circumstances beyond his control.”

While water is not mentioned explicitly, the right to food includes water as well, because water is essential for humans to live, and is therefore in line with the principles of the declaration.

7. Water And Environmental Issues Along with access issues comes use issues .Another issue is the efficient (or inefficient) use of water in industrial agriculture, factories and plants. It takes a great deal of water to manufacture our goods: •1 •1 •1 •1 •

newspaper takes 150 gallons liter of orange juice takes 1000 gallons pound of beef takes 2500 gallons new car takes 40,000 gallons

Food First, mentioned above, charges that “While transnational corporations overexploit water resources as they expand industrial and agricultural capacity, they pollute the water table through pollution or overuse. Meanwhile developing countries—under onerous lending requirements enforced by the World Bank—have had to aggressively export their way out of debt, devastating watersheds and placing water supplies in danger.” Quoting them further, and at length: In the race to compete for foreign direct investment, countries are stripping their environmental laws and protection of natural resources, including water protection. In some cases, such as the world's 850 free trade zones, they either look the other way as environmental laws are broken and waters are criminally polluted or actually set lower standards in these zones than for the rest of the country. Throughout Latin America and Asia, massive industrialization in rural communities is affecting the balance between humans and nature. Water use is being diverted from agriculture to industry. Huge corporate factories are moving up the rivers of the Third World, sucking them dry as they go. Agribusinesses growing crops for export are claiming more of the water once used by family and peasant farmers for food self-sufficiency. The global expansion in mining and manufacturing is increasing the threat of pollution of underground water supplies and contaminating the aquifers that provide more than 50 percent of domestic supplies in most Asian countries. To feed the voracious global consumer market, China has transformed its entire economy, massively diverting water use from communities and local farming to its burgeoning industrial sector. As the big industrial wells consume more water, millions of Chinese farmers have found their local wells pumped dry. Eighty percent of China's major

rivers are now so degraded, they no longer support fish. Economic globalization and the policies that drive it are proving to be totally unsustainable

Climate Change and Water Security Climate change is going to increase water insecurity: Many of the world’s most water-stressed areas will get less water, and water flows will become less predictable and more subject to extreme events. Among the projected outcomes: • Marked reductions in water availability in East Africa, the Sahel and Southern Africa as rainfall declines and temperature rises, with large productivity losses in basic food staples. Projections for rainfed areas in East Africa point to potential productivity losses of up to 33% in maize and more than 20% for sorghum and 18% for millet. • The disruption of food production systems exposing an additional 75–125 million people to the threat of hunger. • Accelerated glacial melt, leading to medium term reductions in water availability across a large group of countries in East Asia, Latin America and South Asia. • Disruptions to monsoon patterns in South Asia, with the potential for more rain but also fewer rainy days and more people affected by drought. • Rising sea levels resulting in freshwater losses in river delta systems in countries such as Bangladesh, Egypt and Thailand.

Future Wars over Water? For a number of years now, we have heard of predictions that future wars will be fought over control of essential resources, such as water. To some extent, most wars have already been about that. However, in terms of water itself, some experts question this prediction. Inter Press Service (IPS) notes a number of experts disagree with the view that future wars will be over water, and instead feel it is mismanagement of water resources which is the issue, not scarcity (which is the underlying assumption for the prediction of such wars. That same IPS article quotes Arunabha Ghosh, co-author of the United Nations Human Development Report 2006 themed on water management who says, “Water wars make good newspaper headlines but cooperation (agreements) don’t.… there are plenty of bilateral, multilateral and trans-boundary agreements for water-sharing—all or most of which do not make good newspaper copy.” Others have noted that there are many more examples of cooperation than conflict in regions with shard water interests. The Stockholm International Water Institute opines that “10- to 20-year-old arguments about conflict over water are still being recycled.” At the same time there have been various incidents that fuel the fear of water-related wars, such as Israel’s recent bombing of the Lebanese water pipelines from the Litani River to farmland along the coastal plain and parts of the Bekaa Valley, and the conflict in Sri Lanka where the rebel group diverted a canal.

Other examples that might be worth watching include the Panama canal as that country considers nationalizing it, the North West Passage through Canada’s northern polar region that is now opening up more due to climate change, which the US argues should be an international water way, and various others that may affect water dependency further up or downstream (e.g. between India/Pakistan, Israel/Jordan, various Nile-dependent countries throughout northern, eastern and central Africa). The Stockholm International Water Institute also argues that “Such arguments [for water wars] ignore massive amounts of recent research which shows that water-scarce states that share a water body tend to find cooperative solutions rather than enter into violent conflict,” which may offer hope that conflicts do not arise, at least not due to water resources. Maude Barlow, in a short interview also raises the concern of geopolitical issues with water. She notes that places such as United States, China and Europe are all seeing water as a national security issue, whether it is for access, management or shortage. Control and access to water will also be important for their industries, as well as for people’s consumption:

International Agreements And Action Access to fresh water is becoming a political problem, rather than a technical one, with lots of questions on the best way for countries to provide it. The Millennium Development Goals, a number of targets to help alleviate poverty around the world by 2015, includes the aim to “reduce by half the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water.” A number of international meetings have taken place in recent years. For example, March 17-22, 2000, saw the Second World Water Forum, which tried to address many issues. The types of topics addressed included the following: • Water as a human right • Water Management—not water scarcity—as the problem • Call for a new Water Ethic; That water is a management problem, a cultural problem, rather than a resource problem in most cases • Governments should participate in people’s projects rather than people participating in governments’ projects • Water culture—and gender. Female involvement will be important. Women are often more sensitive to cultural and other issues which will be important. • Privatization—water should maintain a common property resource, common heritage of all. However, there may be costs associated with being able to provide the infrastructure and services in a sustainable way. • Eco-sanitation: Turning waste into a resource • Rainwater Harvesting Some activists were concerned about the corporate agenda in water privatization. However, as per the final declaration of the water forum, water security was defined to mean that “freshwater, coastal and related ecosystems are protected and improved; that sustainable development and political stability are promoted, that every person has access to

enough safe water at an affordable cost to lead a healthy and productive life and that the vulnerable are protected from the risks of water-related hazards.” The declaration of the third World Water Forum in Japan, in 2003, saw increased support for the private sector. As an AlterNet news report noted, sponsors of the forum included big corporations such as Microsoft and Coca Cola. However, the same AlterNet report noted that privatization was hardly mentioned at the fourth Forum in early 2006, although it was a big concern for activists, environmentalists and others present. The report also quoted Gemma Bulos, founder of the NGO A Single Drop, who attended both the Forum and the parallel alternative forums and noted that, “The omission of the privatization rhetoric may have raised some question as to whether that methodology is considered viable anymore.” The fourth Forum also noted in its final ministerial declaration that governments should have the primary role in providing water access and related improvements. (This does not preclude the use of private companies contracted to provide the service, but highlights the importance of democratic accountability over the provision of such service.) The aforementioned 2006 Human Development Report notes that dealing with causes rather than effects is also cost-effective. “Every $1 spent in the [water] sector creates on average another $8 in costs averted and productivity gained.” The report also lays out four foundations for success, recognizing that these are no ready-made blueprints: 1. Make water a human right—and mean it. 2. Draw up national strategies for water and sanitation. 3. Support national plans with international aid. 4. Develop a global action plan. Urgently resolving key issues such as access to safe water, efficient and sustainable use is likely to involve a number of actors, including governments, corporations, activists, and local people who directly feel the implications of decisions made in fancy corporate offices and luxurious international meeting venues. Without understanding or common goals, the environment, the lives of people and prospects for a healthy future are at risk.

References 1. ^ Hoekstra, A.Y. and Chapagain, A.K. (2007) Water footprints of nations: water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern, Water Resources Management 21(1): 35-48 2. ^ "Looming water crisis simply a management problem" by Jonathan Chenoweth, New Scientist 28 Aug., 2008, pp. 28-32. 3. ^ Chapagain, A.K. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2004) Water footprints of nations Value of Water Research Report Series, No.6, UNESCO-IHE 4. ^ Chapagain, A.K., Hoekstra, A.Y., Savenije, H.H.G. and Gautam, R. (2006) The water footprint of cotton consumption: An assessment of the impact of worldwide consumption of cotton products on the water resources in the cotton producing countries Ecological Economics. 60(1): 186-203. 5. ^ Virtual water and water footprint database 6. ^ Australian Food and Grocery Council. 2003. Environment Report 2003.

7. ^ a b Lenzen, M., Foran, B. (2001) An Input-Output analysis of Australian water usage, Water Policy, 3, 321-340. 8. ^ McCormack, M.S., Treloar, G.J., Palmowski, L. and Crawford, R.H. (2007) Modelling direct and indirect water consumption associated with construction, Building Research and Information, 35[2], 156-162. 9. ^ Water footprint and virtual water 10. ^ Falkenmark, M. (2003) Freshwater as shared between society and ecosystems: from divided approaches to integrated challenges, Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society of London B 358(1440): 2037-2049. PMCID PMC1693285. 11. ^ Berrittella, M., A.Y. Hoekstra, K. Rehdanz, R. Roson and R.S.J. Tol (2007), The Economic Impact of Restricted Water Supply: A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis, Water Research, 42, 1799-1813. 12. ^ Allan, T. (1998) Watersheds and problem sheds 13. ^ a b c Virtual Water - for release - STC 14. ^ Distilled 15. ^ Slide 1 16. ^ a b Expert Statement on Virtual Water by Dr. Hazim El-Naser and Mohammad Abbadi (2005).

CONCLUSION The National Aquaculture Association supports environmentally sustainable development and operation of aquaculture facilities. The NAA believes aquaculture has prospered and is the fastest growing sector of US agriculture because it is environmentally compatible and aquaculture products are valued by the US consumer. Each aquaculture industry sector has unique production requirements, challenges and potential to impact the environment. Each aquaculture operation must be evaluated within a site-specific and watershed specific framework. Evaluations must be based on credible information. Regulatory and voluntary efforts must be optimized to achieve cost-effective solutions. The NAA believes that if environmentally sound watershed management programs are to be developed, accurate information must be used. Aquaculturists must participate and do their part to ensure a healthy, sustainable environment.