Wikipedia

User:Elviruzunovic/sandbox

< User:Elviruzunovic

The topic selected for the Wikipedia assignment is water politics. Water politics, also referred to as hydro-politics already has a well-established Wikipedia foundation, but can benefit from further contributions. The Wikipedia coverage on water politics has few gaps that can be improved, such as a lack of information regarding certain countries. For example, currently the sections regarding Mexico, South America and India have limited content. Furthermore, there are vast amounts of countries that have access to great sums of water bodies and river basins that can be mentioned in the article. Additionally, the Wikipedia page can be improved by providing information on water agreements within and between nation states. To explain, there are many bilateral and multilateral agreements, which are currently attempting to address complications in water sharing (Elhance, 2000; Moore, 2017). However, the Wikipedia article does not address any of these agreements. Yet these agreements hold importance because it dictates the governments approach water management. On another note, the Wikipedia article fails to make mention of the bottom-up approach, otherwise known as hydropsychology. The utmost attention of water politics is focused on the top-down approach, which is the macro-level approach. It is important to note however, that the micro-level (hydropsychology) is essential in dictating the distribution of water at an international level. This micro-level can range from the individual to the community to the cities. There are some cities that have greater water use than others and this must be taken into account when considering water-agreements (Moore, 2017; Sivakumar, 2012). Finally, the section on privatization is condensed and does not hold much information on the actual privatization of water. Instead, this section provides examples of privatization but fails to address the term as a whole. Elviruzunovic (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The rationale for selecting water politics is its significance in a global context. The significance of water politics is heavily influenced by many factors. Water politics can be framed in a variety of different ways. To start, it can be framed as a health issue because water is a limited resource; if it is not managed efficiently then eventually it can have consequences on individual health and can cause a global crisis. Likewise, having inefficient water politics can result in conflict between nations. For example, if one country lacks water and another country has an overabundance of water, this can result in conflict between countries and lead to warfare (Elhance, 2000). To illustrate, currently there is conflict surrounding the water management between Israel and Palestine. This is significant because it demonstrates the impact of lack of water politics. Access to water is a fundamental basic human right and should be available to every individual. International communities are seeking to set agreements into place to prevent any future conflict over water as a resource. However, the current agreements are by no means a solution to the potential problem and must be re-evaluated. The international community is still in the process of determining a means of agreements so that water sharing does not escalate into a global problem (Elhance, 2000).Abdullah95x (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, water politics is significant because it can also be framed as an economic issue. The cost of water is on the rise due to the scarcity of the resource. The value of water is dependent on the need of water. Certain countries and occupations require water more than others. Creating water-sharing policies can have cost implications to countries and companies (Moss & Newig, 2010). However, currently some countries such as the United States are working on creating efficient water management policies (Alamaro, 2014). This requires innovation, which is a lengthy and expensive process that also holds cost implications. Effective water policies require a framework that can address a wide array of issues (Moore, 2017). Ultimately, water politics is of the upmost significance because it impacts how humans operate their daily lives, and has environmental, economic, and potential living consequences. Elviruzunovic (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

In sum, this proposal highlights the significance of water politics as an environmental issue and a human right issue with an economic impact. Currently, Wikipedia is satisfactory in representing the issue of water politics. However, there are areas in water politics that Wikipedia fails to address. These gaps include information regarding countries, privatization, international agreements, framework and approaches to water management. This Wikipedia article can benefit from further contributions, therefore it is our goal to provide additional information on the topic of water politics. Elviruzunovic (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead Section

edit

Water composes roughly 71% of the Earth’s surface and is comprised of hydrogen and oxygen. [1] Water is important because it influences sustainability and it influences the local and global economy. [2] However, 97% of Earth’s water is salt water, which is not safe for human consumption. [1] It is important to manage the small portion of water availability for human consumption for Sustainability and economic purposes. [2] Water politics focuses on efficient management of water.

Water is required for society to develop and function. Inefficient governmental practices in water politics have resulted in economic consequences. These consequences can arise in a variety of ways such as; increased costs for agriculture business, decreased local competitiveness, decreased local jobs, infrastructure costs, costs for aid in water droughts, environmental damages, and environmental catastrophe. [3] [4]Environmental Federalism has been created to manage water politics in an efficient manner to avoid negative economic consequences. Environmental federalism manages the distribution of task, revenues and expenditures in water management through different levels of government [5]

Human Rights have been defined by the United Nations as universal legal guarantees that protect individual’s freedom and dignity [6]. Water has been recognized as a human right under articles 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and it has been placed on the Millennium Development Goals. [7][8]. Human rights contribute to the equalization of all human being regardless of personal characteristics and encourage social progress at a global level. A disparity in human rights causes inequalities as some individuals become more privileged than others at the fundamental level. [7] Water is an absolute necessity for human beings because it is a means of survival. A lack of resources can lead to illness and/or death.

Hydropsychology is the micro-level approach of dealing with water politics. The micro-level approach to water politics focuses on the impact that municipalities have on the abundance of water. [9] The importance of the micro-level approach of water politics is shadowed by the focus of policy makers on the macro-level approach, which addresses water politics in a global context. There is a disparity in resources available to countries. Countries such as the United States have water readily available, which results to greater water consumption. However Third World countries do not share the same benefit [10]. As a result, The United States is reluctant to share their water resources with third-world countries due to a lack of returns. International agreements have been put into place to address the issue of water disparity among nation states. [9][10]

Privatization of water companies has been discussed as an alternative and reform to current practices. Privatization would result in increasing costs for water, but better water quality in return. Few countries have looked into the privatization of water such as Argentina, Bolivia, South Africa, and the Philippines. These developing countries lack economic success due to a lack of water availability and management [11]. Water privatization has not worked for these developing countries because the cost for water is too high.

Wikipedia Final Article

edit

Economy

edit

Global Economy

edit

Globalization has benefitted the economy greatly through increased trade and production of food, energy, and goods. However, the increase of trade and production of goods requires large quantities of water, in fact the OECD countries predict that by 2050, the global demand for water will increase by 55%. [12] Multiple countries and organizations have declared a water crisis. Water is a finite resource that is shared between nations, within nations, multiple interest groups and private organizations. Roughly 50% of all water available is located between two or more nation states. [12] Water politics and management requires efficient water allocation through policies and cooperation between nations. Poor water politics and practices can result in water conflict, which is more common surrounding freshwater due to its necessity for survival. Countries that have a greater supply of water have greater economic success due to an increase in agricultural business and the production of goods, whereas countries, which have limited access to water, have less economic success. [13] This gap in economic success due to water availability can also result in water conflict. The World Trade Organization has emerged as a key figure in the allocation of water in order to protect the agricultural trade. [13] Water is an essential commodity in the global market for economic success.

Jordan River
edit

The Jordan River conflict, otherwise known as the War Over Water is an example of transboundary conflict between Israel, Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine. This water conflict begun in 1953 as a result of poor water politics and management between nation states and negotiations are ongoing. [14] The conflict begun with Jordan’s intention to irrigate land using a shared basin for agriculture and economic purposes, in response, Israel closed the gates of a dam in the Sea of Galilee, draining the water available. [15] Negotiations started with the Bunger Plan that would allocate water from the Jordan River fairly among the surrounding nations, however Israel declared its riparian rights were not recognized. [15] The consequences of the Jordan River conflict has resulted in economic damages to irrigation, agriculture, production, and resources to all of the nation states involved. The World Health Organization records that the total global economic loss associated with inadequate water politics, supply and sanitation is estimated at $260 billion annually USD. [16] The Jordan River conflict demonstrates a lack of efficient transboundary water politics, which has contributed to this annual global economic loss. Currently, negotiations have attempted to establish a fair divide and share of the Jordan River, but have had little success. [15]

Aral Sea
edit

The water conflict in the Aral Sea is an ongoing transboundary conflict starting from 1991 between Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. [17] [18] Social causes such as economic development, population growth, electricity demand, and pollution has resulted in water scarcity. [17] The water scarcity has resulted in limited availability to allocate water efficiently between the neighboring countries. [18] The water scarcity has impacted many aspects of life and resources such as; fish, biodiversity, water, air pollution, forestry, agricultural land and ecosystem availability. [17] The impact of poor water politics and management has negatively influenced the economy of the surrounding countries and has created stress on resources that are crucial to the agricultural sector. [17] [18] Research indicates that water scarcity can cost regions up to 6% of their GDP and cause migration, which negatively impacts the local economy. [19] There have been multiple attempts to resolve the conflict from different organizations such as The Interstate Commission for Water Coordination, Interstate Council of the Aral Sea, and The Aral Sea Basin Program, but the issue is still ongoing. [17]

Local Economy

edit

Water politics is present within nations, otherwise known as subnational. The shared jurisdiction of access to water between intergovernmental actors is crucial to efficient water politics. Inefficient water politics at the subnational level has a greater impact on the local economy through increased costs for businesses, increased costs for the agricultural sector, decreased local competitiveness, decrease in local jobs and infrastructure costs. [4] For instance, Texas plans to build reservoirs to combat water shortages; these reservoirs will cost more than $600 per acre-foot for construction. [3] Subnational states have a crucial role in water politics through managing local water sources and addressing issues concerning water politics such as allocation, scarcity and water pollution.

Colorado River Basin
edit

The Colorado River Basin is transboundary basin shared between the United States and Mexico. However at the subnational level within United States, the basin is shared between Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Nevada and California. The Colorado River Basin demonstrates intergovernmental conflict over the autonomy of water politics. [20] Intergovernmental water politics has many actors such as private organizations and interest groups. Cooperation in subnational water politics can result in economic benefits through shared costs and risk for infrastructure. In addition, efficient water politic management results in profitable allocations of water that can sustain irrigation and the agricultural sector.

Human Rights

edit

Water is an absolute necessity in human sustainability and human survival. There is no human activity that can be sustained without the use of water whether it be at a direct or indirect level. [9] The United Nations declared access to water as a fundamental basic human right under articles 11 and 12 of the International Covenant, which identifies and protects rights at an international level. In addition, the Millennium Development Goals of 2000 includes the sharing and fair allocation of water as a major goal. [7]The United Nations and Millennium Development Goals oppose water privatization because water is a human right and every human being is entitled to water use. Equal access to water entails that no individual should be given privilege over the other at the absolute basic level. The sale of water cannot be permitted or justified under the United Nations at the basic level because water is seen as a universal human right. The right to water was created specifically to assist poor individuals in developing countries through attaining equitable access to water to prevent illness and death. [7][10] Additionally, water rights are also associated with protecting the environment, strengthening the economy and strengthening the water delivery system. [7]

There have been many agreements set in place to try and avoid inequality and conflict with the use of water. Still, international leaders are struggling with incorporating bilateral and multilateral agreements to ensure efficient and fair water allocation. For instance, there are approximately 275 river basins and 270 ground water aquifers with policies that manage the sharing of the resource by two or more nations. [10] Despite the use of policies in the shared management of water, there have been multiple conflicts between nations because of poor water allocation. [10] Likewise, there has been over 300 water treaties signed internationally in dealing with water sharing yet the management and allocation of water is still unresolved. [9] Currently, policies and agreements intended to address water politics and allocation between nation states are insufficient. The United Nations has not presented an initiative to create a strategic framework to penalize nations, which have water conflicts. [7] Without enforcement of such policies and frameworks nations feel minimal pressure in complying with policies, resulting in continued inefficient practice of water politics. There has been a demand from countries and interest groups for the United Nations to set out a policy with rules and boundaries on water sharing and allocation. This policy must include clear-cut penalties for countries that go against the policies. [10]

As the availability of water decreases daily, the demand for policies and agreements to address water allocation and sharing increases. Bilateral and multilateral agreements are most important for third world countries since water is a scarce resource, and they will be the first to face water shortages . [10] The purpose of agreements is to ensure that all individuals have access to water as part of their fundamental basic human rights. Developed countries can offer resources to trade for water but third world countries are not as well off as developed countries and will lag behind. If agreements are not set in place many third world countries will have no choice but to turn to warfare in order to secure water. [7] Water wars can arise over the necessity of water for survival; a lack of water can result in economic consequences, biodiversity consequences, environmental consequences, illness and even death. The United Nations emphasizes and prioritizes water as a human right. However, the United Nations fails to create a policy that appropriately creates balance in terms of water-sharing and allocation. [7]

Hydropsychology

edit

The creation of policies and agreements becomes even more difficult when the matter of hydropsychology is factored in. Hydropsychology is known as the use of water at the micro-level or at the individual level. Hydropsychology is advantageous because it studies the use of water at the smaller scale. Hydropsychology is noted as the bottom-up approach whereas hydropolitics (water politics) is the top-down approach. [10] Historically, hydropsychology was not given much attention because international leaders focused on international water sharing and allocation rather than domestic use. [9] Currently, international leaders are now requesting urgent and increased attention from the international community on the matter of hydropsychology because it greatly impacts water scarcity. [9] For example, the United States has a large abundance of water; as a result the United States micro-level management of water provides the ability for the United States to have recreational activities such as water parks that provides economic advantages. Whereas, many third world countries do not have access to clean water and their situation will only worsen as the water supply lessens. [9] Hydropsychology is important because it determines how much of the world’s water supply is being used at the micro-level. Furthermore, the usage of water for recreational activity instead of sustainability creates a significant increase in the attention that hydropsychology is now receiving as there are drastic gaps between the availability of water in countries. Some countries use water freely for recreation, whereas other countries had limited supplies for survival, efficient water politics addresses this issue through good water allocation and management. [9] [10] Hydropsychology indicates that the interest of certain individuals and communities in certain countries takes precedent over the importance of equality and water as a human right. [10] However countries can utilize resources however they please, international agreements exist to avoid water conflict between nations through efficient water allocation practices.

There has been a proposition in a more balanced approach for water-sharing and allocation through a combination of large scale politics on the international level and smaller scale politics (hydropsychology) rather than focusing strictly one a singular approach. This balanced approach would include policies created at community levels and national levels in order to address the issue of water-sharing and allocation. [10] Currently, hydropolitics only studies water at the international level and hydropsychology studies water at local level. The failure of hydropolitics on its own is demonstrated through the conflicts that have occurred in the past and present between nations that share and manage water together. Thus the combination of hydropolitics and hydropsychology would assist international leaders with addressing water-sharing. Both hydropolitics and hydropsychology have different approaches on dealing with the matter and the different ideas can merge to create a more complete solution. [9] [10] The combination of hydropsychology and hydropolitics will also assist in dealing with matters such as virtual water trading, river linking scheme, large dams, and climate change. [10] The advantage is based on the premise that the use of water starts at the individual level, which eventually impacts the actions of governments and major institutions. [10] The international level pays minimal attention to local affairs but has extensive knowledge on international policies. Subsequently, the local level pays minimal attention to international affairs but has major knowledge on local water use. Thus, the combination of the two make up for the lack of attention each level gives to the other. It is also important to note that the individual level has an impact on the governmental level, which affects the abundance of water, and international agreements that will be created. The reconciliation of hydropolitics and hydropsychology must be considered in dealing with water-sharing. [9][10] The importance of hydropsychology was neglected in the past but its importance is extremely evident for the present and future.

Privatization

edit

Water privatization is a strategy utilized to deliver a secure and sustainable supply of water from private organizations rather than having the public sector provide this service. [21] Privatization of water politics entails a reorganization of water allocation from the public sector to the private sector through privatization and commercialization of water.[22] The government forfeits the management of water politics to a private organization. Private organizations allocate water based on capitalism mechanisms [22]. The commercialization of water politics in the private sector distributes water based on rationales that concern economic profitability. [22]

Historically, water privatization has resulted in civil disputes, protests and wars. The United Nations classifies access to clean drinking water as a universal human right. [23] Water privatization does not provide water as a universal human right, but provides water based on profitability. A major concern for water privatization is a loss of control of a vital resource for the public sector. [24] Privatization limits public accountability, multinational water corporations are responsible to stakeholders, whereas the public sector is responsible to it’s citizens. [24] Public control of water politics allows public input and transparency. Private organization limits transparency because private organizations are not required to be open and transparent to the public. [24] In addition, private water organizations have different goals and agendas compared to the pubic sector; this can create water conflict and tension between the public and private sector. [24]

Mexico City
edit

Water privatization has been adopted in Mexico City to combat the growing concern of poor water politics offered by the public sector. Under the public sector, it was estimated that Mexico City loses up to 40% of its water through leaky pipes. [25] In 1994, Mexico City privatized its water services through the Distrito Federal to tackle water shortages. [21] The environmental and economic scenario at the time pressured the Party of the Democratic Revolution to adapt water privatization in order to address water shortages. [21] Mexico City is one of few examples of a successful privatization of water services. From 1994 to 2003 multinational water corporations provided an increase of water quality services, while the public sector held control of infrastructure. [21] However, recently Mexico City has faced some hardships in water privatization due to contract negotiations between the public and private sector, which has resulted in stalled efficiency of water services. [21]

Bolivia
edit

Bolivia privatized its water supply in the city of Cochabamba in 1999 to Sempa, a multinational private water organization. [26] Afterwards, Bolivia signed a $2.5 billion contract, behind closed doors for Cochabamba’s water system to Aguas del Tunari. [27] The privatization of Cochabamba’s water supply resulted in The Cochabamba Water War, which started in 1999 and concluded in 2000. The Cochabamba Water War resulted in multiple protests and violent outbreaks in response to the privatization of water. [26][27] Aguas del Tunari promised to provide electricity and irrigation to Cochabamba. In addition, Bechtel, a major shareholder of Aguas del Tunari, ensured that water and sewage services would increase dramatically under private management. [27] However, Cochabamba citizens were told that these services would result in a 35% increase in costs for water. [28][27] The Bolivian government enacted Law 2029 which provided a regime of concessions regarding the provision of water, Law 2029 essentially gave the private sector the water monopoly and exclusive rights to water within Cochabamba. [28] The goal of law 2029 was to provide more efficient water services to areas in Cochabamba that had a population over 10,000 citizens through water privatization. [28] The situation in Cochabamba was exacerbated when the cost of water doubled, and even tripled in certain areas. [28] The rise in costs was due to the construction of the Misicuni dam project and the debt left behind by Sempa. [27] The drastic increase in cost for water supply resulted in protests that shut down the city for four days. [27] Peaceful protests lead by Oscar Olivera quickly became violent causing multiple protests that lasted days resulting in the Bolivian government declaring a state of emergency [28][27] The Cochabamba water war concludes with President Huge Banzer resigning from office, leaving Bolivia in similar conditions before the privatization of water [27]

  1. ^ a b USGS, Howard Perlman,. "Where is Earth's water? USGS Water-Science School". water.usgs.gov.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ a b Söderbaum, Peter (7 December 2009). "Science, politics and water management for sustainability: economics as example". Water International. 34 (4): 432–440. doi:10.1080/02508060903374400.
  3. ^ a b Alamaro, Moshe (30 September 2014). "Water politics must adapt to a warming world". Nature. 514 (7520): 7–7. doi:10.1038/514007a.
  4. ^ a b "Water Scarcity: Economic Implications". {{cite web}}: Text "water economy" ignored (help); Text "water resource" ignored (help)
  5. ^ Moss, T., & Newig, J. (2010). Multilevel Water Governance and Problems of Scale: Setting the Stage for a Broader Debate. Environmental Management, 46(1), 1-6. doi:10.1007/s00267-010-9531-1
  6. ^ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (n.d.). Retrieved March 08, 2017, from http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h Khadka, Arjun Kumar (22 January 2010). "The Emergence of Water as a 'Human Right' on the World Stage: Challenges and Opportunities". International Journal of Water Resources Development. 26 (1): 37–49. doi:10.1080/07900620903391838.
  8. ^ United Nations Millennium Development Goals. (n.d.). Retrieved March 08, 2017, from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/environ.shtml
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Elhance (1 February 2000). "Hydropolitics: Grounds for Despair, Reasons for Hope". International Negotiation. 5 (2): 201–222. doi:10.1163/15718060020848730.
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Sivakumar, Bellie. "Planning and management of shared waters: hydropolitics and hydropsychology – two sides of the same coin". International Journal of Water Resources Development. 30 (2): 200–210. doi:10.1080/07900627.2013.841072.
  11. ^ Moyo, K., & Liebenberg, S. (2015). The Privatization of Water Services: The Quest for Enhanced Human Rights Accountability. Human Rights Quarterly 37(3), 691-727.
  12. ^ a b Holmgren, Torgny; Jägerskog, Dr Anders; Berggren, Jens; Joyce, John (30 August 2013). "The global water crisis – why water politics matter for business security". The Guardian.
  13. ^ a b Hoekstra, Arjen (January 2010). "WHO: The Relation Between International Trade and Freshwater Scarcity" (PDF): 1–26. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  14. ^ Cartwright, Randy. "JORDAN". gurukul.ucc.american.edu.
  15. ^ a b c Wolf, Aaron; Newton, Joshua. "Case studies | Water Conflict Management and Transformation at OSU". www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu.
  16. ^ Hutton, Guy (March 2013). "Global costs and benefits of reaching universal coverage of sanitation and drinking-water supply". Journal of Water and Health. 11 (1): 1. doi:10.2166/wh.2012.105.
  17. ^ a b c d e "Conflict Over Water in the Aral Sea | ECC Factbook". ECC Library. 9 February 2015.
  18. ^ a b c Wolf, Aaron; Newton, Joshua. "Case studies | Water Conflict Management and Transformation at OSU". www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu.
  19. ^ "High and Dry: Climate Change, Water, and the Economy". World Bank.
  20. ^ Moore, Scott M. (19 January 2017). "The dilemma of autonomy: decentralization and water politics at the subnational level". Water International. 42 (2): 222–239. doi:10.1080/02508060.2017.1276038.
  21. ^ a b c d e Pierce, Gregory (December 2012). "The Political Economy of Water Service Privatization in Mexico City, 1994–2011". International Journal of Water Resources Development. 28 (4): 675–691. doi:10.1080/07900627.2012.685126.
  22. ^ a b c Ahlers, R. (29 April 2010). "Fixing and Nixing: The Politics of Water Privatization". Review of Radical Political Economics. 42 (2): 213–230. doi:10.1177/0486613410368497.
  23. ^ "UN-Water: Home". www.unwater.org.
  24. ^ a b c d "Water Privatization: Facts and Figures". Food & Water Watch. 31 August 2015.
  25. ^ "BBC NEWS". news.bbc.co.uk.
  26. ^ a b "Water war in Bolivia". The Economist. 10 February 2000.
  27. ^ a b c d e f g h "FRONTLINE/WORLD . Bolivia - Leasing the Rain . Timeline: Cochabamba Water Revolt | PBS". www.pbs.org.
  28. ^ a b c d e Coleman, Thomas (2012). "Who Owns the Water? An Analysis of Water Conflicts in Latin American and Modern Water Law" (PDF). Intersections. 12 (2): 1-19.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Elviruzunovic/sandbox&oldid=773011733"