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 closed-
recirculation 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.
 [Country Profiles — India ]
Indicators Data Year Source
Water Resources
Total annual water
477 cu.km 2007 1
resources (AWR)
Water from
international rivers as share 75 % 2007 1
of annual water resources
Total resources per
32,175 cu.m 2007 1
capita
Dam capacity as
13.2 % 1996 1
percentage of AWR
Water Use
Total annual water
withdrawals as share of Total 0.9 % 2000 1
AWR
Domestic 2 % 2000 1
Industry 1 % 2000 1
Agriculture 98 % 2000 1
Water withdrawals
296 cu.m 2000 1
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 Bank-
encouraged 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 earlier-
mentioned 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 newspaper takes 150 gallons

•1 liter of orange juice takes 1000 gallons
•1 pound of beef takes 2500 gallons
•1 new car takes 40,000 gallons
•
Food First, mentioned above, charges that “While transnational corporations over-
exploit 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.