————————–

The world is in the midst of a water crisis. The typical story is that fresh water supplies are running out and that we are bleeding the earth dry.

Water, one of the fundamentals for all life, is getting scarcer so we need to value it more and manage the fresh water resources to ensure that they don’t run out. But the real story goes deeper than that.

There is solid evidence behind concerns over scarcity. The 2030 Water Resources Group suggests the world will face a 40 percent global shortfall between forecast demand and available supply by 2030, and that by then more than a third of the global population will be living in river basins coping with significant water stress.

The negative effects of this water stress can be felt across the world’s ecosystems as rivers silt up, habitats are destroyed and people struggle to farm and grow crops.

Lack of water has a huge impact on food security, and in extreme cases such as we’re currently seeing in the Horn of Africa, a water stressed area can be easily pushed into famine.

This growing scarcity, worsened by demand growth and climate change, means that we need to work out how to fairly share a finite resource as well as how to use water that we have more effectively.

But that is only one part of the crisis – the scarcity challenge is intertwined with a second, less-acknowledged dimension of the global water crisis – the “challenge of access”.

Some 884 million people don’t have access to safe drinking water, for them this is a crisis happening right  now – preventable diarrhoea kills more children in sub-Saharan Africa than AIDS, malaria and measles combined.

This puts a huge disease burden on the health systems in developing countries and holds back overall economic development.

If we are to really tackle the global water crisis, we must realise that scarcity and lack of access are intimately linked. Fairly sharing a finite resource cannot happen without universal access; and universal access is threatened by physical limits to the resource and political attention being diverted by more visible issues.

Solving these interlocking challenges is deeply linked to addressing other major issues, including energy, food and climate change.
Water worlds

Water is used in a wide range of ways, so water means different things to different people – and water issues are talked about separately depending on the context. I have loosely characterised these “water worlds” below:

•    Water stewardship – Focus on management of water resources and ecosystems. Key issues include: efficiency of use; cost-recovery; management and distribution.
•    Water and sanitation poverty – Focus on access to improved water sources by the most marginalised of society. Key issues include: addressing political and power dynamics of access.
In addition, these “worlds” interact with others
•    Food Security – predominantly concerned with agricultural supply, price dynamics, and production efficiency.
•    Millennium Development Goals – particularly nutrition (MDG 1, 4, 5, 6), but also maternal health (MDG 5), child mortality (MDG 4), education (MDG 2) and gender equality (MDG 3).
•    Climate change – the common narrative is that climate change is all about water – too much, too little, the wrong type. This is true for surface water, but much more complicated for groundwater.

Pooling the waters

Tackling the global water crisis means that these ‘water worlds’ need to be linked. Yet, to date the growing number of water security initiatives fails to take into account the human dimension of exclusion. For example, the 2030 Water Resources Group’s ‘Charting our Water Future’ breaks new ground in finding practical ways of meeting growing demand, but is largely irrelevant in the context of the least developed countries, with no mention of access or the debilitating impact of WASH poverty on economies. If decision makers around the world really want to tackle the world’s water crisis, then they need to take action to address both scarcity and access.
Experts from around the world will meet next week in Stockholm – if they can step outside their boundaries and work together with others, it’ll go a long way to turn this crisis into a real opportunity to show how economy, environment and development can be addressed together to unlock green growth.

Zzzzzz...

“Why not?!” I hear you cry. I work on climate change, I’ve been to previous COPs, I know the players, I know the politics. It is precisely because of this that I’ve chosen not to go.

Firstly, the political reality is that Cancun is about two things: mitigation (developed and developing country and MRV, or trust and transparency as normal people would say) and finance (agreeing how to set up a new global fund; and where the money will come from). In short this is about getting the main political agreements from the Copenhagen Accord formally into the UN system.

It’s no secret that there are certain countries that do not want a deal. Often they will manipulate and at time bully others into adopting a line that blocks progress, even if it is against their own interest. The key to an international deal is to break this negative dynamic. As Wangari Maathai sets out, it’s about rebuilding trust in each other and the UN system. As powerful and almighty as I am (*cough, cough*), I’m afraid I can’t really change that.

Don’t get me wrong, I would love to go. It’s exciting and buzzy to be there amongst a great community of people – many of whom are my friends. It’s great for networking and building knowledge. But for actually influencing the negotiations, for all the sound and fury, there is very little that signifies anything – to borrow an in-joke, it’s not a Party-driven process, it’s a process-driven party. Having been part of the one of the key Party delegations, I’ve seen how much the outcomes are dictated by broader politics.

So should we abandon hope? No. There is much work to be done – but at a national level. For example, the UK is passing a raft of funding decisions about mitigation, that most climate NGOs are not engaged in. And Bangladesh, Niger and Tajikistan have just received $280m between them to become more climate resilient (by the way, that’s real money, not just pledges – and it’s already leveraged several hundred million more from development banks) and could genuinely help people cope with climate change. The best way to help the international negotiations is not to be there, but to focus on changing national politics and policies around the world, particularly in laggards (no names mentioned!). It’s about demonstrating that low carbon development doesn’t have to mean poor economic performance, in fact, low carbon development can mean riding new markets and investment now saves money – and that some developing countries have a competitive advantage in these fields.

Finally, I chose to leave the negotiations world because even if we stopped all our emissions now, we would still be locked into a certain amount of change. This will impact on the poorest and most vulnerable (incidentally, this is one key issue to watch out for – how do you define vulnerability. G77 will tie themselves in knots over this). I believe that we will find ways to adapt, but it will not necessarily be done equitably. We have a responsibility to work with governments to ensure that the needs of the most vulnerable are addressed. This happens at a national level, not in the halls of the UNFCCC. In some countries this will be highly political and will mean tackling established power relationships – it will not be easy and will demand struggle.

The political and financial attention given to climate change gives us a unique window of opportunity. If we can use climate change to find ways to reduce vulnerability, both concrete on-the-ground interventions and through systemic interventions around governance and power, then we will go some way to address the power inbalances and politics that are at the heart of development and equality.

So instead I will be in Burkina Faso, working with local partners and government to understand how to help local communities manage their water more equitably and sustainably so that they can cope with changes in climate. We don’t have all the answers, but we also don’t have the time to sit around and figure it all out. Therefore we need to find a balance between trying things and developing building blocks – learning-by-doing if you like. In time we will be able to build this knowledge and in turn feed it back into the negotiations.

I don’t pretend that what I’m doing is any more effective than being in Cancun, but if we really want to make a difference to people’s lives, we must look inwards and question what will really drive change and where each of us fits. That’s the change in climate that I want to see.

Carry on

So having made one life decision, another one has presented itself. Just as I made the decision in my head to come back, two amazing opportunities cropped up. Ironically neither result from the proverbial career irons I shoved in the fire (see earlier post Why?), but both fill me with an excitement and passion that I haven’t felt for a long time without being strapped to a snowboard.

They are similar in that they relate to climate change and how it can change the way we do things for the better. But they are both very different in terms of working environment, culture and future directions. They both tick the boxes of contribution to something meaningful and personal/professional development.

One is at the nexus of climate change, business and the citizen-consumer. Hopefully I’m not breaking any confidentiality agreements, but it is in a large retailer – a very large one, dealing mainly with UK food, but expanding internationally and in non-food (specifically finance). If I was to re-enter the corporate world, this would be the organisation, both in terms of scale of impact, culture and board-level leadership. The job has a real immediacy to it. It is a fast-paced world, where my actions would have real direct implications for hundreds of thousands of people around the world. The job is about addressing climate change in a commercial environment. For me, it would be a very challenging context – I would be surrounded by people who are not necessarily climate-oriented or interested in climate change for the same reasons as I am, but that’s what makes this role absolutely at the heart of handling climate change in the real world.

The other, just as fair, is on another new frontier – the intersection between climate change, conflict and governance. Understanding how climate change links to conflict and using that to build peace – in particular, supporting inclusive, participatory approaches to decision-making as a central part of the solution to both challenges. Working in a very influential and well respected international NGO, with people who are passionate about the issues, have jobs driven by larger purpose and take time to consider the complexity of the problems. The role would be really engaging with the complexity of all three problems, through advocacy and direct contributions to real-world, on-the-ground projects in some very interesting and demanding places. It would have a longer-term, strategic bent, allowing me to grow into other areas that I care about and again, would be directly at the heart of my interest in climate change,

Perhaps it comes back to the question of contribution. I feel like I have so much to give and have been trying to find where to give it, feeling that I just don’t fit in the current job market – now suddenly there are two opportunities that fit me perfectly. I want to contribute to the changes that I feel are happening in the world, but where am I best placed to do it? But perhaps more importantly, which is right for me as an individual? My mind tells me that there is no such thing as a wrong decision, but I feel at a fork in the road and choosing a path is never simple.

It’s made me think back to the first post I wrote about heading to New Zealand (Thanks Bob – the themes of that poem keep coming back to me!). “What am I hoping to get out of it? Space. Time. Freedom to think about what actually matters to me, about how I’d like to be remembered and about what the hell to do with myself and the precious gift of life.” I’m beginning to feel like maybe I’m getting a handle on those questions, and although the decision may be hard, what’s important is that either of these jobs will help me along my road less travelled.

New shoots

Well I’ve been here in Japan for 5 months, the last 2 of which have been trying to sustain myself over the summer both financially and spiritually. And on both counts, I think it’s time to call it a day. I’ve decided to head back to the UK, temporarily, but depending on a few things, possibly for longer.

On reflection, at times, this has felt like a retreat, giving me space and perspective on the maelstrom of thoughts that filled my world (at other times, it’s been quite the opposite!). But now, I feel like Rabbit has finally stopped talking and I’m beginning to hear those 12 pots of Hunny calling me.

I can no longer hide from the little nagging voice in my head that speaks of our interconnectedness and moral imperatives. As a good friend once said “I’ve stepped in my conscience and I can’t seem to shake it off”. I want to contribute, play my part in what is an exciting time for the world. And now I feel ready to return to more direct efforts to make this world a better place, armed with a clearer sense of direction – I’m ready to channel my energy and experience into something bigger than myself.

I still yearn to live in the mountains and continue to grow as a snowboarder, but I’m confident that will resurface in future, probably in a different form. I’ve spent the last 5 years juggling two worlds, and perhaps now is the time to keep my eye on the other ball.

So, where in the world does this put me? Well, I came here seeking a better quality of life and found it in some ways. But I miss my friends, my family, my community. They’re all part of a well-balanced life and contribute to a sense of belonging, of meaning. I love meeting new people and discovering new places, but I miss some of the mundane, routine things that made up my life in London and I miss hanging out with old friends. So that points to being back in the UK again, but at the same time I’m still not ready to fix myself in the UK and there’s a world of opportunities out there. So time will tell as to where I end up (no surprises there then!).

Douzo

Some may see this decision as turning back, giving up. Or as indecision, caught between two worlds. Perhaps it is, and maybe I’m trying to create grander purpose behind my decisions or explain myself somehow, but it feels different to me.  To me it feels like a new phase of my life, moving forward, evolving, beginning.

Wow. So, I’ve started my MA in Sustainable Enterprise and one of the things I wanted to do was write a blog of the experience and my personal journey through it. I’m now three days in and my head feels like it’s about to explode.

I’ve got so much to say, but I’m just not sure how to express it in a readable way! I guess starting from the start is a good way. So the MA is run through Coventry University’s Applied Research Centre for Human Security. What is human security I hear you ask? Good question – I won’t give an academic answer, but I guess it’s about an approach to global security that focusses on individuals rather than nation states. So instead of security being about maintaining your borders and repelling invaders, it’s about individuals’ sense of security and well-being. Freedom from fear, access to resources – the room to grow and develop as a human being.

The course itself is looking at the role of enterprise (any sort of organisation, be it business, charity, NGO or government) in human security and sustainability. It’s hard to summarise in a short sentence, and I’m eager to blurt out what’s rattling round my brain, I guess at it’s core is a question about the relative roles and responsibilities of government, business and civil society. It’s about understanding what sustainable enterprise is and what a sustainable enterprise economy looks like.

I think that’s enough of an intro, I apologise that it’s not particularly thorough and it’s not meant to be a comprehensive explanation, just a brief blurb off the top of my head. Anyways, so I’m here with some amazing people with really diverse backgrounds and approaches to life. It’s fantastic to be involved in this with these people. One of the things that Malcolm (McIntosh, who heads up ARCHS) and his team have adopted is a conversational learning approach, where we share in the co-creation of knowledge and understanding. In plain English – we talk about stuff and through it we learn and about each other and ourselves.

I’m here as part of my journey and general existential angst. I guess I’ve been interested in lots of this stuff for a while and the approach they’re adopting here, I guess 3 things in particular are unique to this course and perfect for me:

• A transdisciplinary approach to issues of globalisation, sustainability and social justice
• Complexity – seeing the world as a complex adaptive system
• An approach of creating knowledge through letting things go, through non-directed, conversational learning. One could call it the Tao

It’s been phenomenal to be immersed in this world with such creative and diverse people and really get my teeth into so many of these issues. I’ve been waiting a long time for this and finally feel armed enough to really get stuck in.

So many thoughts and ideas, I can’t really do them justice here. I guess they’ll fall out of my head into this blog over time, but just to try and capture some.

What does it mean to be human? One of the core themes that keep re-appearing is that of “what it means to be human”. Instinctively this means connections and the desire to connect – with each other, with our environment and ourself. It’s also about the ability to choose. Between positive and negative. I’m really interested in exploring this question and in particular about the role of energy in what it means to be human.

Complexity and Buddhist economics Another thought was about seeing sustainable enterprise as being about the long-term future of an organisation, enabling it to continue what it does ad infinitum and then taking Schumacher’s buddhist economics and asking – what if the role of corporations is to provide meaningful work? And progress was about doing thing better but not necessarily bigger. What world the world look like if we all enjoyed work and were truly content with it? Wouldn’t that create productivity, creativity and innovation? So, what if we saw sustainable enterprise as:

• creating work that people enjoy
• within planetary limits
• as a complex adaptive system that is organisationally closed, but energetically open?

The Black Gold Market We’ve just watched Black Gold, a fascinating documentary about the inequities and complexities of the global coffee market. One of the key points was about how low the coffee price was and how it is determined by New York traders. It got me thinking – why is the price so low? I’d be really interested to take my experience and knowledge of the emissions trading market and investigate coffee. What are the price fundamentals and what’s driving the low? How could farmers engage in the market (directly or indirectly) to influence it?

Action research as an instrument of change Coventry Uni is building a new climate change institute. ARCHS have tried to engage with them to get them to build it sustainably, using all the skills on offer at the Uni. They’ve not been able to convince the Uni to do so for a whole host of complex reasons – what are they? Are they perceived or real? How could they be overcome? What role do individuals and individual attitudes have to play in this? Could I achieve change by asking these research questions?

Thai synchronicity In another great example of synchronicity and serendipity – I’m off to Thailand (courtesy of my cousin Chris) to explore opportunities out there. Given their proximity to and relationship with Myanmar/Burma and the complexity of corporate citizenship in that context, it would be fascinating to look into that in more detail. What approach do supra-territorial corporations take to corporate citizenship in Thailand? What role do they have in terms of how Thailand engages with the Myanmar/Burma situation? What role do Thai businesses take in that? How does all of that relate to the inter-governmental relationship? A great opportunity to explore that and engage in a conversational grounded theory approach.

So you can see, my brain hurts. All these thoughts have been milling round in my head somewhere and now is suddenly the right time for them to bloom. I need to nurture and grow them until I can pick the right one and then work with it so that it can express its full self.