Session Report Cover Sheet
SESSION CODE:
IWRM - 34
Name of Convener(s): Mr. Johan Kuylenstierna
DATE:
20 - March, 2003
Session Title: Hydrosolidarity Through
Catchment Based Balancing of Human
Security and Ecological Security
Accommodation:
Contact information
in Japan
Contact No.:
Contact E-mail: johan.kuylenstierna@siwi.org
1
Session Report
SESSION CODE: IWRM - 34
Reporter/Rapporteur: Mr. Johan Kuylenstierna
Contact E-mail : johan.kuylenstierna@siwi.org
Background
Hydrosolidarity, as a vision, is defined as sharing the benefits of water use and providing development
opportunities while safeguarding key ecological services. Solidarity restrains one’s freedom of choice
for the common good. Hydrosolidarity can be used at many different spatial and administrative levels.
The focus of this seminar was on catchment based hydrosolidarity – and how water use within a
catchment, in particular between upstream and downstream users and different sectors, including urban
and urban interests - can generate most benefits to all stakeholders.
Balancing between development and the safeguarding of ecological services as part of development is
a central theme in hydrosolidarity. Ecosystems should not only be seen as users of water but also as
the fundamental providers of services that humankind depends upon for survival.
Key issues raised in presentations
There are certain non-negotiable facts that need to be considered in water resources management and
in the strive to achieve goals, which may partly be incompatible. This includes, for instance, the
millennium development goals versus the sustainability of ecological services. In order to overcome this,
it is central to move away from “sectoral egoism” towards an integrated catchment based
hydrosolidarity.
There are also a number of security dimensions that need to be considered – water security, food
security and economic or livelihood security.
Water security is complex and includes, for instance, water supply, water for plant growth, floods and
droughts management aspects etc. The ecological security can be in conflict with water and economic
security. There is a shift in thinking going on as we are moving from “no change” to an acceptance of
“living with change”. Environmental flow requirements in rivers and the amount of water that needs to
be preserved in order to maintain vital eco-system services limit the degree of freedom for development.
A crucial dimension of ecological security refers to water quality, notably the characteristics of
water-after-use. Economic or livelihood security and opportunities means that water must be linked to
the income generation equation, for instance, increasing the value/benefits per m3 of water.
2
The dynamic interaction and the opportunities for enhanced exchange between urban and rural
development needs to be considered in catchment based hydrosolidarity. The trend world-wide is that
the former urban minority now becomes a the majority compared to rural population. This has effect on
socio-economic development and power structures as urban expansion often implies strengthened
economic development. The focus may shift from water for food production to water for industrial
development – positive from an economic perspective but sometimes negative from a more social
perspective. De-linking affluence and effluence has also proven to be very difficult.
From a more international perspective, hydrosolidarity needs to further include stronger reference to the
management of transboundary and shared water resources. Globalisation processes need to lead to
the more equal distribution of benefits. Solidarity is necessary in this regard. It should be the interest of
each country that the whole region surrounding it develops in a positive way as this has also a positive
impact on each individual country. Water can play an important role in this, as has been the case in
southern Africa. Hydrosolidarity can ensure both equitable allocation but also equitable influence on the
management. Water resources management, and in particular IWRM, can be a driver for institutional
change, regional co-operation etc. In the long run, this leads to positive mutual development and peace.
Management perspectives need to consider that watersheds are only one geographical dimensions. It
is also important to look into “politics-sheds”, “dollar sheds”, “energy sheds” etc – that are not
overlapping with the watershed but that tend to have a more profound impact on water resources and
water resources management. To include other “flows” than water flow is central, such as economic
flows, communication flows, human flows etc. It is central to remember that there are no blueprint
solutions! Often, the process is as important as the product when it comes to the development of IWRM
and integrated catchment plans.
Key issues raised in discussions
There was general strong support for the hydrosolidarity concept as it is defined above. However, it is
central to bring visions to the ground and finding the right tools. Legal, institutional and economic
instruments will play an important role. Current economic and institutional settings do not promote
effective benefit sharing and co-operation within the catchment setting.
To look further into trade-offs is central as trade-offs between different users is a central part of the
hydrosolidarity concept. Benefits flow up-stream while wastewater flows downstream towards to poor.
This can be said to be valid for many river basins today and must be changed. The HOW issue – how
to achieve change - is in many ways about governance. How can hydrosolidarity be realised? It is not
only about the allocation of water, but also the fair allocation of power is imperative for water
management.
3
The hydrosolidarity concept can also be looked upon from a more global scale, although the focus of
this seminar was the catchment scale. On this scale, hydrosolidarity through trade, thus the virtual
water balances, becomes an important aspect. Many countries dependent on outside water rather than
water from the country itself.
Lessons learnt from management need to be shared. International organizations can play an important
role. The Global Water Partnership was brought forward as a good example. It has proven difficult for
countries also to learn from each other even in the same region. – they do not have resources for this.
External pressures are sometimes needed. This is not only a developing country issue.
Hydrosolidarity can be developed into some kind of common, basic ethics and be used as a tool to
improve the basic way of thinking. The concept needs to be used in a wide sense - as a means to
achieve the higher goal of human sustainable development. Although legal and economic instruments
are very important, even more important is ownership, the definition of rights, permits etc.
Recommendations

Sectoral hydroegoism must give place to an intersectoral hydrosolidarity through policies that
support benefit sharing and win-win solutions. To strengthen dialogue and co-operation among
sectors are crucial, but legal, institutional and economic instruments must also be used.

A long term vision needs to be developed, focusing on ways to increase beneficial sharing of joint
water resources between terrestrial ecosystem, aquatic ecosystems, agriculture and other water
uses.

Efforts must increase to attain social acceptance for necessary policies and changes in water
management. This can be achieved through stakeholder involvement in planning and decision
making and developing and clearly presenting incentives for change. People must SEE AND FEEL
the improvements, not only from a social perspective but also wider from a development
perspective. Hydrosolidarity can be tool to explain how benefit sharing, that others also have a
chance to develop and prosper, ultimately will be positive for everyone living within a catchment, be
it national or international.
4