Benefits and cost
Water security is about achieving an acceptable level of risk in the face of: too much water (floods) or too little (drought); water that’s polluted; and competing demands for water that’s also needed to support freshwater ecosystems. The ancient Egyptians understood this well – too little water resulted in crop failure and famine; too much resulted in the destruction of homes and villages. They devised the nilometer to gauge the Nile’s ebbs and flows against the risks they could live with. Today’s societies also need to balance the benefits of minimising water risks with the cost of doing so.
A tale of two policies
How much we’re willing to spend to avoid unwanted water risks varies greatly, depending on place and time. The Netherlands, with more than half of its territory and population in flood-prone areas (accounting for two-thirds of GDP), has some of the highest flood-safety standards. As sea level rises in a changing climate, the Dutch are investing €20bn over 30 years. In contrast, New York City (NYC) is protected against a 1-in-100 year flood event, a much lower level of protection than Dutch cities. But, with Hurricane Sandy causing US$75bn damage, NYC is looking to significantly strengthen its flood defences. While water security largely vanishes from public attention when all goes well, water disasters put these risks in the spotlight, increasing awareness, and often, willingness to pay for protection.
Partnering up
Improving water security is not just about huge investments. The right partnerships can reduce costs and capture greater benefits. For example, as competition for water resources intensifies among farmers, cities, industries and the environment, more flexible ways of allocating water can get it to where it creates the most value while still meeting essential needs. A lack of coordination between international, national, basin and local initiatives and between various users can result in over-allocated rivers, damaged ecosystems and an increased risk of shortage for users. For instance, in Sao Marcos, Brazil, the uncoordinated development of irrigation resulted in reduced capacity for the Batalha hydropower plant to meet its energy generation objectives.
Talk about it
Partnerships that work need the right stakeholders around the table. The ongoing water abstraction reform in England and Wales has provided multiple opportunities for stakeholders to provide inputs on options and what the reform will mean to users, helping to build support. In the US, communities, governments, and environmental NGOs are cooperating within the Federal dam removal programme, to identify and remove so-called “deadbeat dams”, whose benefits are minimal or non-existant. This is often more cost-effective than rehabilitating dams once they have passed their useful lives and improves the ecological functioning of rivers.
A modern nilometer
Good partnerships can help achieve multiple water security goals at the same time, at lower cost and help reap greater benefits. Society also needs to work on a modern version of the Ancient Egyptians’ nilometer – to help define the level of water security we want and how much we’re willing to pay for it.
Simon will be speaking at The Economist Events' World Water Summit on November 6th 2014.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited (EIU) or any other member of The Economist Group. The Economist Group (including the EIU) cannot accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this article or any of the information, opinions or conclusions set out in the article.
