Global Water I nitiatives: Global Water I nitiatives: What Do the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SLIDE 1

Global Water I nitiatives: Global Water I nitiatives: What Do the Experts Think? What Do the Experts Think?

Report on a Survey of Report on a Survey of Leading Figures in the Leading Figures in the ‘ ‘World of Water World of Water’ ’

Robert G. Varady Robert G. Varady and

and Matthew I les

Matthew I les-

• Shih

Shih

Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy The University of Arizona The University of Arizona

Presented at the Presented at the

Workshop on I mpacts of Mega-Conferences on Global Water Development and Management Bangkok, Thailand Bangkok, Thailand Sponsored by the Sponsored by the Third World Centre for Water Management, Mexico Third World Centre for Water Management, Mexico With the support of the With the support of the Sasakawa Peace Foundation, USA and Japan Sasakawa Peace Foundation, USA and Japan January 29 January 29-

• 30, 2005

30, 2005

SLIDE 2

• What are they?

What are they? GWI s are institutions that aim to advance GWI s are institutions that aim to advance knowledge base regarding the world knowledge base regarding the world’ ’s inland water and its s inland water and its

• management. Since 1980s, missions often include active social
• management. Since 1980s, missions often include active social

and policy component. and policy component.

• Origins?

Origins? Numerous & divergent disciplinary, ideological, Numerous & divergent disciplinary, ideological, sectoral, institutional. sources sectoral, institutional. sources

• Utility?

Utility? I nnovative, useful, practical observations & recomms., I nnovative, useful, practical observations & recomms.,

• bscured by # of voices, variety of approaches
• bscured by # of voices, variety of approaches
• Status?

Status? Mosaic of initiatives phenomenon poorly understood & Mosaic of initiatives phenomenon poorly understood & unstudied unstudied

• Research Questions?

Research Questions?

~ ~

Well Well-

• defined network with clear links, traceable influences,

defined network with clear links, traceable influences, unified purpose? Or independent, poorly unified purpose? Or independent, poorly-

• connected,

connected, competing? competing?

~ ~ Have initiatives made a difference?

Have initiatives made a difference?

Why Study Why Study Global Water I nitiatives? Global Water I nitiatives?

SLIDE 3

Purpose of Paper & Hypothesis Purpose of Paper & Hypothesis

• Purpose:

Purpose: To report on the survey. To report on the survey.

• How:

How: Via written materials and use of two survey Via written materials and use of two survey instruments, In the process, the validity of the hypothesis instruments, In the process, the validity of the hypothesis will be assessed. will be assessed.

• Working hypothesis:

Working hypothesis: The numerous existing global water The numerous existing global water initiatives frequently have duplicative aims and have initiatives frequently have duplicative aims and have

• verproliferated.
• verproliferated.
• Expectation:

Expectation: Experts in the field Experts in the field would tend to minimize salutary would tend to minimize salutary influences of GWIs and advocate influences of GWIs and advocate their consolidation or selective their consolidation or selective elimination. elimination.

SLIDE 4

Roots of Water Roots of Water Consciousness and its Consciousness and its I nternationalization I nternationalization

• 1945 . . . WW I I ends . . . Multinatl. ways to avoid wars

1945 . . . WW I I ends . . . Multinatl. ways to avoid wars

~ ~ Reduce conflict by improving human conditions

Reduce conflict by improving human conditions

~ ~ UN agencies for health, nutrition, educ./ sci., human rights, . .

UN agencies for health, nutrition, educ./ sci., human rights, . . . .

• 1950

1950-

• 60s . . . UN prompts 1st global resources

60s . . . UN prompts 1st global resources initiatives initiatives

~ ~ I ntl. Geophysical Year, 1957

I ntl. Geophysical Year, 1957-

• 58

58 ~ ~ Arid Zone Programme, from 1950 Arid Zone Programme, from 1950 ~ ~ I ntl. Hydrological Decade, 1965 I ntl. Hydrological Decade, 1965-

• 74

74 ~ ~ Man & the Biosphere Programme, 1971 Man & the Biosphere Programme, 1971-

• present

present

• 1945

1945-

• late 1970s . . . Ambitious, large

late 1970s . . . Ambitious, large-

• scale waterworks

scale waterworks

~ ~ Dams, irrigation, drainage; hydro plants; interbasin transfers

Dams, irrigation, drainage; hydro plants; interbasin transfers ~ Signals of 20th C progress, centrality of water to society ~ Signals of 20th C progress, centrality of water to society

SLIDE 5

Evolution of Organized Efforts: Evolution of Organized Efforts:

Professional Societies Professional Societies

• I ncreased intl. signif. of water

I ncreased intl. signif. of water

birth of

birth of numerous institutions to advocate one or numerous institutions to advocate one or another of its aspects another of its aspects

• Prof. societies long in vanguard of this advocacy
• Prof. societies long in vanguard of this advocacy
• For professionals of various stripes to share

For professionals of various stripes to share intellectual spaces & expertise, and promote intellectual spaces & expertise, and promote basic & applied research basic & applied research

SLIDE 6

Evolution of Organized Efforts: Evolution of Organized Efforts:

Professional Societies Professional Societies

I ntl. Navigation Assoc. (PI ANC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ntl. Navigation Assoc. (PI ANC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1885 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1885 Commission I nternationale des Glaciers . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commission I nternationale des Glaciers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1894 1894 I ntl. Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (I UGG) . . . . . . . . . . I ntl. Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (I UGG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1919 1919 I ntl. Assoc. of Hydrological Sciences (I AHS) . . . . . . . . . I ntl. Assoc. of Hydrological Sciences (I AHS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1922 1922 I ntl. Assoc. of Theoretical and Applied Limnology (SI L) . . . . I ntl. Assoc. of Theoretical and Applied Limnology (SI L) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1922 1922 I ntl. Council for Science (I CSU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ntl. Council for Science (I CSU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1931 1931 I ntl. Assoc. for Hydraulic Research (I AHR) . . . . . . . . . . . I ntl. Assoc. for Hydraulic Research (I AHR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1935 1935 World I rrigation and Drainage Congresses . . . . . . . . . . . . World I rrigation and Drainage Congresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1951 1951 I ntl. Assoc. of Hydrogeologists (I AH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ntl. Assoc. of Hydrogeologists (I AH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1964 1964 I ntl. Water Resources Assoc. (I WRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ntl. Water Resources Assoc. (I WRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1973 1973 I ntl. Water Assoc. (I WA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ntl. Water Assoc. (I WA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1995 1995 I ntl. Water History Assoc. (I WHA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I ntl. Water History Assoc. (I WHA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001 2001

SLIDE 7

Evolution of Organized Efforts: Evolution of Organized Efforts:

I nternational Hydrological Decade I nternational Hydrological Decade & I ts Origins & I ts Origins

• Effects of Postwar Polarization

Effects of Postwar Polarization

I solation of professionals from counterparts I solation of professionals from counterparts I deological differences in science & tech. I deological differences in science & tech. Gulf in content of science Gulf in content of science

• Responses: Call for global programs

Responses: Call for global programs

I ntl. Geophysical Year (I GY), 1957 I ntl. Geophysical Year (I GY), 1957-

• 1958

1958 I ntl. Hydrological Decade (I HD), 1965 I ntl. Hydrological Decade (I HD), 1965-

• 74

74

I HD Objectives I HD Objectives

Collect hydrological data Collect hydrological data Research problems Research problems Assess resources & budget balances Assess resources & budget balances Facilitate info. exchange Facilitate info. exchange Educate & train Educate & train

SLIDE 8

Evolution of Organized Efforts: Evolution of Organized Efforts:

I nternational Hydrological Programme (I HP) I nternational Hydrological Programme (I HP)

• Last action of I HD: large scientific conf. in Paris

Last action of I HD: large scientific conf. in Paris in 1974 in 1974

• Question:

Question: how to harness I HD energy, carry how to harness I HD energy, carry forward unfulfilled ambitions forward unfulfilled ambitions

• I HD seen as 1st part of long

I HD seen as 1st part of long-

• term program

term program

• UNESCO

UNESCO’ ’s 1974 Gen. Conf. took lead in s 1974 Gen. Conf. took lead in transforming I HD into periodically renewable transforming I HD into periodically renewable I nternational Hydrological Programme (I HP) I nternational Hydrological Programme (I HP)

SLIDE 9

The I nternational Hydrological The I nternational Hydrological Programme (I HP) Programme (I HP)

• Goal similar to I HD: strengthen connections between

Goal similar to I HD: strengthen connections between science research, applic., & educ. on water science research, applic., & educ. on water

• From 30 member states & 19 observer nations to 164

From 30 member states & 19 observer nations to 164

• natl. committees
• natl. committees
• Redefined every 6 yrs., admin. by UNESCO

Redefined every 6 yrs., admin. by UNESCO

• Phased approach to permit adaptation & redefinition

Phased approach to permit adaptation & redefinition

• Since 1981 emphasizes

Since 1981 emphasizes practical, rational practical, rational mgt. of water

• mgt. of water

resources; since 1990 resources; since 1990 “ “sustainability sustainability” ” central central

• Sees itself as permanent forum to encourage

Sees itself as permanent forum to encourage multinational coop. & innovation in water sci. & mgt. multinational coop. & innovation in water sci. & mgt.

SLIDE 10

Types of I nstitutions and Processes Types of I nstitutions and Processes

Next slides describe following types Next slides describe following types

• f initiatives
• f initiatives

Designated periods

Designated periods

• Organized events

Organized events

• I ntergovernmental & nongovernmental

I ntergovernmental & nongovernmental

• rganizations
• rganizations

SLIDE 11

Types of I nstitutions Types of I nstitutions & Processes: & Processes:

Designated Periods Designated Periods

Designated Period Designated Period Years Years

• Intl. Hydrological Decade (IHD)
• Intl. Hydrological Decade (IHD)

1965 1965-

• 74

74

• Intl. Drinking Water Supply & Sanit. Decade (DWSSD)
• Intl. Drinking Water Supply & Sanit. Decade (DWSSD)

1981 1981-

• 90

90

• Intl. Year of Freshwater (IYF)
• Intl. Year of Freshwater (IYF)

2003 2003

• Intl. Water for Life Decade
• Intl. Water for Life Decade

2005 2005-

• 15

15

SLIDE 12

Types of I nstitutions Types of I nstitutions and Processes: and Processes:

Organized Events Organized Events ___________________ ___________________

• Types

Types Forums, conferences, megaconferences Forums, conferences, megaconferences

• Topics

Topics All All-

• inclusive environ. themes vs. water only

inclusive environ. themes vs. water only

• Size

Size Last 2 World Water Forums, 5,000, 10,000+ Last 2 World Water Forums, 5,000, 10,000+

• Participants

Participants More interdisciplinary, more NGOs More interdisciplinary, more NGOs

• Agendas

Agendas Problem Problem-

• framing principles: sustainability,

framing principles: sustainability, biodiversity, I WRM, bottom biodiversity, I WRM, bottom-

• up, equity

up, equity

• Results

Results ~ ~ Well Well-

• intentioned declarations

intentioned declarations ~ ~ But idealistic, largely unimplemented But idealistic, largely unimplemented ~ ~ Most common outcome: Most common outcome: “ “networking networking” ”

SLIDE 13

Types of I nstitutions & Types of I nstitutions & Processes: Processes:

Events & Declarations Events & Declarations

Organized Event: Organized Event: Declaration Declaration Year Year Venue Venue

UN Conf. on Human Envir.: UN Conf. on Human Envir.: Stockholm Declaration Stockholm Declaration 1972 1972 Stockholm Stockholm UN Conf. on Water: UN Conf. on Water: MDP Action Plan MDP Action Plan 1977 1977 Mar del Plata Mar del Plata

• Intl. Conf. on Water & Envir.:
• Intl. Conf. on Water & Envir.: Dublin Statement

Dublin Statement 1992 1992 Dublin Dublin UN Conf. on Envir. & Devel.: UN Conf. on Envir. & Devel.: Agenda 21 Agenda 21 1992 1992 Rio Rio First World Water Forum: First World Water Forum: Marrakech Declaration Marrakech Declaration 1997 1997 Marrakech Marrakech

• Intl. Conf. on Water &
• Intl. Conf. on Water & Sust
• Sust. Devel.:

. Devel.: Paris Declaration Paris Declaration1998 1998 Paris Paris 2nd World Water Forum: 2nd World Water Forum: World Water Vision World Water Vision 2000 2000 The Hague The Hague UN Millennium Assembly: UN Millennium Assembly: Millennium Declaration Millennium Declaration 2000 2000 New York New York

• Intl. Conference on Freshwater:
• Intl. Conference on Freshwater: Minist. Declaration
• Minist. Declaration

2001 2001 Bonn Bonn World Summit on Sust. Devel.: World Summit on Sust. Devel.: Jo Jo’ ’burg Plan of Impl. burg Plan of Impl. 2002 2002 Johannesburg Johannesburg Third World Water Forum: Third World Water Forum: Kyoto Minist. Declaration Kyoto Minist. Declaration 2003 2003 Kyoto Kyoto

SLIDE 14

Types of I nstitutions & Processes: Types of I nstitutions & Processes:

I ndependent, Multilateral I nitiatives I ndependent, Multilateral I nitiatives

• AI DA

AI DA (Intl. Association for Water Law)

(Intl. Association for Water Law)

• AWRA

AWRA (Amer. Water Resources Assoc.)

(Amer. Water Resources Assoc.)

• CWS

CWS (IGU Comm. on Water Sustain.)

(IGU Comm. on Water Sustain.)

• DWC/ CPWC

DWC/ CPWC (Dialogue/Co

(Dialogue/Co-

• operative
• perative
• Prog. on Water & Climate
• Prog. on Water & Climate
• DWFE

DWFE (Dialogue on Water, Food &

(Dialogue on Water, Food & Envir.) Envir.)

• GEWEX

GEWEX (Global Energy & Water Cycle

(Global Energy & Water Cycle Exp.) Exp.)

• GI WA

GI WA (Global Intl. Waters Assess.)

(Global Intl. Waters Assess.)

• GWP

GWP (Global Water Partnership)

(Global Water Partnership)

• GWSP

GWSP (Global Water System Project)

(Global Water System Project)

• HELP

HELP (Hydrol. for Environ., Life & Policy)

(Hydrol. for Environ., Life & Policy)

• I AH

I AH (Intl. Assoc. of Hydrogeologists)

(Intl. Assoc. of Hydrogeologists)

• I AHR

I AHR (formerly Intl. Assoc. for Hydraulic

(formerly Intl. Assoc. for Hydraulic Research) Research)

• I AHS

I AHS (Intl. Assoc. for Hydrol. Sci.)

(Intl. Assoc. for Hydrol. Sci.)

• I CI D

I CI D (Intl. Comm. on Irrig. & Drain.)

(Intl. Comm. on Irrig. & Drain.)

• I COLD

I COLD (Intl. Comm. on Large Dams)

(Intl. Comm. on Large Dams)

• I CSU

I CSU (Intl. Council for Science)

(Intl. Council for Science)

• I HDP

I HDP (Intl. Human Dimensions Prog. on

(Intl. Human Dimensions Prog. on Global Envir. Change) Global Envir. Change)

• I HP

I HP (Intl. Hydrological Programme)

(Intl. Hydrological Programme)

• I NPI M

I NPI M (Intl. Netw. on Particip. Irrig. Mgt.)

(Intl. Netw. on Particip. Irrig. Mgt.)

• I PCC

I PCC (Intergov. Panel on Climate Chg.)

(Intergov. Panel on Climate Chg.)

• I UCN

I UCN (World Conservation Union)

(World Conservation Union)

• I UGG

I UGG (Intl. Union of Geodesy and

(Intl. Union of Geodesy and Geophysics) Geophysics)

• I WA

I WA (Intl. Water Association)

(Intl. Water Association)

• I WALC

I WALC (Intl. Water Assoc. Liaison

(Intl. Water Assoc. Liaison Committee) Committee)

• I WMI

I WMI (Intl. Water Mgt. Institute)

(Intl. Water Mgt. Institute)

• I WRA

I WRA (Intl. Water Resources Assoc.)

(Intl. Water Resources Assoc.)

• MDG

MDGs (Millennium Development Goals)

s (Millennium Development Goals)

• PCCP

PCCP (From Potential Conflict to Co

(From Potential Conflict to Co-

• peration Potential)
• peration Potential)
• PI ANC

PI ANC (Intl. Navigation Association)

(Intl. Navigation Association)

• Ramsar

Ramsar (Ramsar Conv. on Wetlands)

(Ramsar Conv. on Wetlands)

• UN Eco. Commission for Europe

UN Eco. Commission for Europe

• WCWTC

WCWTC (World Comm. on Water for 21

(World Comm. on Water for 21st

st C)

C)

• WHO

WHO (World Health Org.)

(World Health Org.)

• WMO

WMO (World Meteorological Org.)

(World Meteorological Org.)

• WWAP

WWAP (World Water Assessment Prog.)

(World Water Assessment Prog.)

• WWC

WWC (World Water Council)

(World Water Council)

• WSSCC

WSSCC (Water Supply & Sanit. Collab.

(Water Supply & Sanit. Collab. Council) Council)

SLIDE 15

Survey Methodology Survey Methodology

Respondent Types Respondent Types

27 27 7 7 26 26 Females Females 71 71 64 64 90 90 Males Males 60 60 37 37 62 62 Observers Observers 63 63 34 34 54 54 Representatives Representatives Response rate Response rate (%) (%) Completed at Completed at least 1 survey least 1 survey Identified Identified

SLIDE 16

Survey Methodology Survey Methodology

Response Summary Response Summary

70 70 48 48 56 56 Short form Short form 66 66 46 46 53 53 Long form & interview Long form & interview 89 89 61 61 71 71 Completed 1 or both forms Completed 1 or both forms 100 100 68 68 80 80 Agreed to participate Agreed to participate 23 23 27 27 No response No response 8 8 9 9 Declined to participate Declined to participate 100 100 116 116 Contacted Contacted % of those % of those agreeing to agreeing to participate participate % of initial % of initial survey survey pool pool

• No. of
• No. of

individuals individuals Action Action

SLIDE 17

Professional Societies Professional Societies

______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ Program Program Year Year I nfluence rating I nfluence rating estab. estab. (1 to 5; (1 to 5; with 1 = best

with 1 = best)

) ________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____

I ntl. Assoc. of Hydrological Sciences (I AHS) I ntl. Assoc. of Hydrological Sciences (I AHS) 1922 1922 2.30 2.30 I ntl. Assoc. of Hydrogeologists (I AH) I ntl. Assoc. of Hydrogeologists (I AH) 1956 1956 3.04 3.04 I ntl. Water Association (I WA) I ntl. Water Association (I WA) 1999 1999 3.08 3.08 I ntl. Water Resources Association (I WRA) I ntl. Water Resources Association (I WRA) 1972 1972 3.15 3.15 I AHR (I ntl. Assoc. of Hydraulic Research) I AHR (I ntl. Assoc. of Hydraulic Research) 1935 1935 3.22 3.22 I ntl. Water Assocs. Liaison Comm. (I WALC) I ntl. Water Assocs. Liaison Comm. (I WALC) 2000 2000 3.79 3.79 All professional societies All professional societies 3.10 3.10

SLIDE 18

Designated Periods Designated Periods

_____________________________________________ _____________________________________________

Program Program I nfluence rating I nfluence rating (1 to 5) (1 to 5)

_________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________

I nternational Hydrological Decade (I HD) I nternational Hydrological Decade (I HD) 2.69 2.69 I ntl. Year of Freshwater (I YF) I ntl. Year of Freshwater (I YF) 3.12 3.12 I ntl. Drink. Water Supply & Sanitation Decade I ntl. Drink. Water Supply & Sanitation Decade 3.40 3.40 All time periods All time periods 3.07 3.07

SLIDE 19

Organized Events Organized Events

_______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ Program Program Year Year I nfluence I nfluence estab. estab. (1 to 5) (1 to 5) _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ I ntl. Conf. on Water & Envir. (I CWE) I ntl. Conf. on Water & Envir. (I CWE) Dublin Dublin 1992 1992 2.17 2.17 UN Conf. on Envir. & Devel. UN Conf. on Envir. & Devel. Rio Rio 1992 1992 2.39 2.39 Second World Water Forum (SWWF) Second World Water Forum (SWWF) The Hague The Hague 2000 2000 2.50 2.50 Millennium Assembly Millennium Assembly NY NY 2000 2000 2.53 2.53 Third World Water Forum (TWWF) Third World Water Forum (TWWF) Kyoto Kyoto 2003 2003 2.56 2.56 UN Conference on Water (UNCW) UN Conference on Water (UNCW) Mar Del Plata Mar Del Plata 1977 1977 2.86 2.86 I ntl. Conference on Freshwater (I CF) I ntl. Conference on Freshwater (I CF) Bonn Bonn 2001 2001 3.13 3.13 UN Conf. on Human Envir. UN Conf. on Human Envir. Stockholm Stockholm 1972 1972 3.16 3.16 First World Water Forum (FWWF) First World Water Forum (FWWF) Marrakech Marrakech 1997 1997 3.37 3.37 I ntl. Conf. on Water & Sust. Devel. I ntl. Conf. on Water & Sust. Devel. Paris Paris 1998 1998 3.73 3.73 All events All events 2.84 2.84

SLIDE 20

I ntergovernmental & I ntergovernmental & Nongovernmental Organizations Nongovernmental Organizations

___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ Program Program Year Year I nfluence I nfluence estab. estab. (1 to 5) (1 to 5)

______________________ ___________________________________________ __________________________________________ _____________________ ______________________ ___________________________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________

UNESCO UNESCO’ ’s I ntl. Hydrological Prog. (I HP) s I ntl. Hydrological Prog. (I HP) 1975 1975 2.38 2.38 World Water Council (WWC) World Water Council (WWC) 1996 1996 2.80 2.80 World Water Assessment Prog. (WWAP) World Water Assessment Prog. (WWAP) 2000 2000 2.90 2.90 Global Water Partnership (GWP) Global Water Partnership (GWP) 1996 1996 3.02 3.02 Hydrology for Envir., Life & Policy (HELP) Hydrology for Envir., Life & Policy (HELP) 1999 1999 3.08 3.08 Water Supply & Sanit. Collab. Council (WSSCC) Water Supply & Sanit. Collab. Council (WSSCC) 1990 1990 3.40 3.40 GEWEX (Global Energy & Water Cycle Exp.) GEWEX (Global Energy & Water Cycle Exp.) 1988 1988 3.43 3.43 Dialogue on Food, Water & Envir. (DWFE) Dialogue on Food, Water & Envir. (DWFE) 2001 2001 3.48 3.48 Global Water Syst. Project (GWSP) Global Water Syst. Project (GWSP) 2001 2001 3.62 3.62 Global I ntl. Waters Assessment (GI WA) Global I ntl. Waters Assessment (GI WA) 1999 1999 3.88 3.88 All organizations All organizations 3.20 3.20

SLIDE 21

Observations and I nterpretation Observations and I nterpretation

I nfluence I nfluence

Comparative Observations Comparative Observations

• Composite mean score for all 29 GWI s

Composite mean score for all 29 GWI s = = 3.02 3.02 or

• r “

“C C” ” (2.84 to 3.19). (2.84 to 3.19). Respondents did not rate influence of Respondents did not rate influence of initiatives highly. initiatives highly.

• Further evidence of cynicism: Only 11

Further evidence of cynicism: Only 11

• f 29
• f 29

“

“C C” ”; highest was ; highest was “ “B B-

• ”

” (2.0 (2.0-

• 2.5), for only 5 GWI s; while 4 were

2.5), for only 5 GWI s; while 4 were assigned assigned “ “D+ D+ ” ” rating (3.5 rating (3.5-

• 4.0).

4.0).

• Among four categories (societies, time

Among four categories (societies, time periods, events, organizations), periods, events, organizations), events events considered most influential considered most influential (2.84) and (2.84) and

• rganizations least influential
• rganizations least influential (3.19).

(3.19).

SLIDE 22

Observations and I nterpretation Observations and I nterpretation

I nfluence I nfluence

Professional Societies Professional Societies

• I AHS considered most influential (2.30)

I AHS considered most influential (2.30)

• I AH, groundwater hydrology organization, was

I AH, groundwater hydrology organization, was second (3.04) second (3.04)

• I WA, estab. 1999, next at 3.08

I WA, estab. 1999, next at 3.08

• I WALC, very recent, lowest

I WALC, very recent, lowest-

• rated at 3.79

rated at 3.79

SLIDE 23

Observations and I nterpretation Observations and I nterpretation

I nfluence I nfluence

Designated Time Periods Designated Time Periods

• I HD by far the highest

I HD by far the highest-

• rated at 2.69; can be seen

rated at 2.69; can be seen as inspiration for subsequent time periods as inspiration for subsequent time periods

• At other end, I ntl. Drinking Water Supply &

At other end, I ntl. Drinking Water Supply & Sanitation Decade rated at 3.40, not very Sanitation Decade rated at 3.40, not very influential influential

SLIDE 24

Observations and I nterpretation Observations and I nterpretation

I nfluence I nfluence

Organized Events Organized Events

• Dublin Conference most highly regarded (2.17);

Dublin Conference most highly regarded (2.17); highest score for any GWI . highest score for any GWI .

• Rio Earth Summit, though less focused, next at 2.39

Rio Earth Summit, though less focused, next at 2.39

• World Water Forums I I (2.50), then I I I (2.56). WWFI

World Water Forums I I (2.50), then I I I (2.56). WWFI not well known (3.37) not well known (3.37)

• Mar Del Plata first to be dedicated to water, its

Mar Del Plata first to be dedicated to water, its principles widely accepted, but received average principles widely accepted, but received average ranking (6 ranking (6 th

th of 10) with 2.86

• f 10) with 2.86
• 1998 Paris conference ranked last (3.73)

1998 Paris conference ranked last (3.73)

SLIDE 25

Observations and I nterpretation Observations and I nterpretation

I nfluence I nfluence

Organizations Organizations

• Of 10 rated, I HP scored highest with 2.38

Of 10 rated, I HP scored highest with 2.38

• 2 of next 3 highest were WWC (2.80) and GWP

2 of next 3 highest were WWC (2.80) and GWP (3.02). Cooperation or competition? (3.02). Cooperation or competition?

• WWAP (2.90) and HELP (3.08), both at UNESCO,

WWAP (2.90) and HELP (3.08), both at UNESCO, also also “ “friendly rivals, friendly rivals,” ” scored similarly scored similarly

• Lowest

Lowest-

• scoring initiative was GI WA

scoring initiative was GI WA

SLIDE 26

Observations and I nterpretation Observations and I nterpretation

Views and Opinions Views and Opinions

Role of Governments, NGOs, Stakeholders Role of Governments, NGOs, Stakeholders

• Overwhelming support for govt. involvement (96% )

Overwhelming support for govt. involvement (96% )

• NGOs (88% ), stakeholder groups (93% ) also valued

NGOs (88% ), stakeholder groups (93% ) also valued

• Leadership is greatest contribution of

Leadership is greatest contribution of govts

• govts. (34% )

. (34% )

• No expectation of funding from NGOs, stakeholder

No expectation of funding from NGOs, stakeholder groups groups

• NGOs (27% ), stakeholder groups (59% ) enhance

NGOs (27% ), stakeholder groups (59% ) enhance participation participation

SLIDE 27

Observations and I nterpretation Observations and I nterpretation

Views and Opinions Views and Opinions

Significant Actions Significant Actions

• Advancing ideas & practices (49% )

Advancing ideas & practices (49% )

• Publications most significant (11/ 36), projects &

Publications most significant (11/ 36), projects & programs next (10/ 36) programs next (10/ 36)

• Only 4% of respondents cited conferences &

Only 4% of respondents cited conferences & workshops as significant workshops as significant

SLIDE 28

Observations and I nterpretation Observations and I nterpretation

Views and Opinions Views and Opinions

Program Results Program Results

• Again, meetings & conferences

Again, meetings & conferences poorly poorly regarded (just 3 of 77) regarded (just 3 of 77)

• I deas & practices favored by

I deas & practices favored by 49% ; 49% ; publications publications

• Trends parallel those for

Trends parallel those for “ “actions actions” ”

• One difference: only 3% thought developing policies was feasible

One difference: only 3% thought developing policies was feasible action, but 10% thought policies had actually resulted action, but 10% thought policies had actually resulted

• I ndecision (25 of 77) likely a proxy for skepticism

I ndecision (25 of 77) likely a proxy for skepticism

• Just 1 respondent saw real difference on the ground

Just 1 respondent saw real difference on the ground

SLIDE 29

Observations and I nterpretation Observations and I nterpretation

Views and Opinions Views and Opinions

I nstitutional Overlap I nstitutional Overlap

Three times as many sought to explain Three times as many sought to explain impact (52) as tried to define causes (18) impact (52) as tried to define causes (18)

• Of those who rated impact, 58%

Of those who rated impact, 58% considered it negative considered it negative

• 75% thought overlap was prevalent, by

75% thought overlap was prevalent, by implication, implication, too too prevalent prevalent

• Half of raters thought impact was

Half of raters thought impact was significant significant

• 28% contended that new initiatives were

28% contended that new initiatives were created for created for “ “personal personal” ” reasons reasons

SLIDE 30

Observations and I nterpretation Observations and I nterpretation

Views and Opinions Views and Opinions

Proliferation Proliferation

• Attitudes toward proliferation even more negative

Attitudes toward proliferation even more negative (64% ) than toward overlap (58% ) (64% ) than toward overlap (58% )

• 56% thought it significant

56% thought it significant

• 9 of 10 who cited intensified competition as effect,

9 of 10 who cited intensified competition as effect, called that a drawback called that a drawback

• Only 2 of 6 possible effects considered beneficial

Only 2 of 6 possible effects considered beneficial

SLIDE 31

Observations and I nterpretation Observations and I nterpretation

Views and Opinions Views and Opinions

Managing Diversity and Proliferation Managing Diversity and Proliferation

• I n spite of views that overlap, proliferation negative, a startl

I n spite of views that overlap, proliferation negative, a startling ing contradiction: 82% chose guiding proliferation instead of contradiction: 82% chose guiding proliferation instead of stopping or limiting it stopping or limiting it

• I n other words, maybe too many GWI s, but their proliferation

I n other words, maybe too many GWI s, but their proliferation should not be limited should not be limited

• Flexible management seen as most appropriate option

Flexible management seen as most appropriate option

• To paraphrase Malin Falkenmark, just as with species,

To paraphrase Malin Falkenmark, just as with species, institutional diversity institutional diversity provides richness & variety of approaches, provides richness & variety of approaches,

• pinions, individuals
• pinions, individuals

SLIDE 32

Observations and I nterpretation Observations and I nterpretation

Views and Opinions Views and Opinions

Assessing Overall I mpact Assessing Overall I mpact

• 79% said GWI s had positive

79% said GWI s had positive

• r partially positive influence
• r partially positive influence
• 20% pointed to

20% pointed to “ “real real” ” changes as most significant changes as most significant

• 20% found that GWI s have

20% found that GWI s have exerted influence in exerted influence in “ “fuzzy fuzzy” ” ways such as increasing awareness ways such as increasing awareness

• Similarly, strong support (6/ 7) for success in improving

Similarly, strong support (6/ 7) for success in improving communication, cooperation, and facilitation (7/ 8) communication, cooperation, and facilitation (7/ 8)

SLIDE 33

Conclusions Conclusions

• GWI S are of four types

GWI S are of four types

• Survey 1 allows assessment of relative influence

Survey 1 allows assessment of relative influence

• Survey 2 allows testing of hypothesis

Survey 2 allows testing of hypothesis First part (too many GWI s with duplicative First part (too many GWI s with duplicative aims) is aims) is confirmed confirmed Second part (reduce # of GWI s) Second part (reduce # of GWI s) rejected rejected; ; instead, strong acceptance of existence, instead, strong acceptance of existence, embrace of diversity, interest in helping manage embrace of diversity, interest in helping manage

SLIDE 34

What Does it All Mean? What Does it All Mean?

• Largest remaining task:

Largest remaining task: Assess actual Assess actual accomplishments in accomplishments in “ “world of water world of water” ” ~ ~ I nstitut. processes vs. changes caused by I nstitut. processes vs. changes caused by demography, development, globalization, . . . demography, development, globalization, . . . ~ ~ Are improvements in conditions due to specific Are improvements in conditions due to specific initiatives? initiatives? ~ ~ Can real changes in policy be attributed to Can real changes in policy be attributed to initiatives? initiatives?

SLIDE 35

Develop instruments to measure progress Develop instruments to measure progress Gauge effectiveness of activities on the ground Gauge effectiveness of activities on the ground I dentify programs that have/ have not achieved aims I dentify programs that have/ have not achieved aims Determine ingredients of success and failure Determine ingredients of success and failure

To Be Done. . . . To Be Done. . . .

SLIDE 36

Results should interest physical Results should interest physical scientists, social scientists, planners, scientists, social scientists, planners, managers, diplomats, leaders of global managers, diplomats, leaders of global water initiative phenomenon, water initiative phenomenon, and especially decisionmakers and especially decisionmakers