Pipedreams? Page 1

Pipedreams? GLOBAL FRESHWATER PROGRAMME

Interbasinwatertransfersandwatershortages

©E

.Tzi

ritis

/W

WF-

Gre

ece

Pipedreams? Page �

Contents

Page

Summary 3

1 Introduction 5

2 Interbasinwatertransfers–thecontext 6

2.1 TheWorldwatercrisis 6

2.2 Theescalatingdemandsforwater 7

2.3 TheWorldwatercrisisandimpactsonfreshwaterecosystems 7

3 Whatcanwelearnfromexistinginterbasinwatertransferschemes 8

Casestudy1 Tagus-SeguraTransfer,Spain 9

Casestudy2 SnowyRiverScheme,Australia 11

Casestudy3 LesothoHighlandWaterProject,LesothoandSouthAfrica 13

Conclusions - summary of lessons learned 15

4 Inthepipeline–interbasinwatertransfersinthefuture 16

Casestudy4 TheAcheloosDiversion,Greece 17

Casestudy5 SaoFranciscoInterlinkingProject,Brazil 20

Casestudy6 OlmosTransferProject,Peru 23

Casestudy7 TheSouth-NorthTransfer,People’sRepublicofChina 26

Conclusions - summary of lessons learned 30

5 Alternativestointerbasinwatertransfers 31

5.1 IBTspromotingagriculturalproductioninwaterpoorareas 32

5.2 IBTsthatfailtoexaminealternatives 34

5.2.1 Reducingwaterdemand 35

5.2.2 Recyclingwastewater 36

5.2.3 Supplementingwatersupplieslocallyandalookatthe Godavari-Krishnalink 37

5.2.4 ConsideringIBTsasalastoption 41

5.3Governancefailuresinriverbasinplanning 42

6 Conclusionsandrecommendations 46

7 Referencesandfurtherreading 47

Pipedreams?Interbasinwatertransfersandwatershortages

June2007

Pipedreams? Page 3

Summary

The world is increasingly forced to face the challenge of how to ensure access

to adequate water resources for expanding populations and economies whilst

maintaining healthy freshwater ecosystems and the vital services they provide.

One increasingly popular way for governments to pursue in seeking to distribute

water more evenly across the landscape is to transfer it from areas with perceived

surpluses, to those with shortages.

Historically,suchtransfershavegenerally

beenrestrictedtowithinriverbasins,but

increasingly,largequantitiesofwaterare

beingmovedoverlongdistances,from

oneriverbasintoanother.Theseinterbasin

watertransferschemes(IBTs),astheyare

known,arenotanewphenomenon.Like

theoutbreakofdambuildingthatmarked

thelasthalfofthe1900s,IBTsareoften

touted as the quick fix solution to meeting

escalatingwaterdemands,inordertostoke

the fires of economic development, address

povertyreduction,andtofeedrapidly

growinghumanpopulations.

ThewiderangeofIBTprojectsinplace,or

proposed,hasledtothepreparationofthis

reviewincludingsevencasestudiesfrom

aroundtheglobe.Itexaminesthecosts

and benefits of large scale IBTs, as well

asanalysingthelessonslearntfromsome

existingschemes.

ThereportconcludesthatwhileIBTscan

potentiallysolvewatersupplyissuesin

regionsofwatershortage,theycome

with significant costs. Large scale IBTs

aretypicallyveryhighcost,andthus

economicallyrisky,andtheyusually

also come with significant social and

environmentalcosts;usuallyforboththe

riverbasinprovidingandtheriverbasin

receivingthewater.

Fromanenvironmentalperspective,IBTs

ingeneralinterrupttheconnectivityofriver

systems and therefore disrupt fish spawning

and migration. They alter natural flow

regimes,sometimeswithgreatecological

costtothreatenedaquaticspeciesor

protectedareas,contributetosalinisation

andwatertableloweringincoastalareas

andcanalsofacilitatethetransferof

invasivealienspeciesbetweenriverbasins.

WhatstandsoutamongtheIBTcase

studiesoutlinedinthisreport(and

elsewhere)arethefollowing:

1Apartfromhydropowergeneration,a

commondriverofIBTsisadesireto

promoteagriculturalproductioninwater

poorareasand,inparticular,irrigated

agriculture.Thiscanseeunsustainable

(subsidized)croppingpracticespromoted

bytheIBTwhenperhapsthiswas

unwise;

�Thereistypicallyafailuretoexamine

alternativestotheIBTthatmaymean

delaying,deferringoravoidingthecosts

ineverysenseofanIBT;and

3 Therearearangeofgovernancefailures

rangingfrompoortonon-existent

consultationwithaffectedpeople,to

failing to give sufficient consideration or

weighttotheenvironmental,socialand

culturalimpactsoftheIBT,inboththe

donorandrecipientbasins.

ThehistoryofIBTstodateshouldbe

sufficient to sound very loud alarm bells for

anygovernmentcontemplatingsuchaplan.

Despitethemanylessonsweshouldhave

learntfrompastIBTexperiences,many

decisionmakerstodaycontinuetoseeIBTs

asatechnicalsolutiontorestoreperceived

imbalancesinwaterdistribution.

ThedevelopmentofIBTs,ratherthan

restoringawaterimbalance,usually

disturbs the finely tuned water balance

inboththedonatingandthereceiving

riverbasin.RegularlyoverlookedinIBT

developmentaretheshort,mediumand

Pipedreams? Page �

longertermimpactsofmovingwaterfrom

onecommunity(thedonorbasin)and

providingittoanother(therecipientbasin).

Asnotedabove,weakgovernanceisalso

symptomaticofIBTdevelopment,withpoor

tonon-existentconsultationwithaffected

peoplecommonlybeingwitnessedand

alackofconsiderationatanappropriate

managementscale.Thisfailuretolookat

theimpactsoftheproposedIBTwithin

ariverbasinmanagementframework

considerablyelevatestherisksof‘collateral

damage’fromtheIBT.Throughemploying

themanagementmodelofIntegratedRiver

BasinManagement,governmentsandcivil

societywillbemuchbetterplacedtomake

wellinformeddecisionsinrelationtoIBTs.

WWFrecognisesthatwhilelocalIBTs

may, under certain circumstances, fulfil an

importantrole(forexampleinsupplying

drinkingwatertopopulationcentres)

the benefits of many large scale transfer

schemesthatarestillonthedrawing

boardaredoubtful.InthepastmanyIBTs

havecausedadisproportionateamount

ofdamagetofreshwaterecosystemsin

relation to the schemes’ benefits. Social and

economicimpacts,especiallyforthedonor

basin,areingeneralunacceptablealso.

Thesizeofmanyschemeshasmeantthat

alarge-scaleIBTisrarelythemostcost

effectivewayofmeetingwaterdemands.

Ofconcerntooisthatinmanycasesthe

introductionofanIBTdoesnotencourage

userstousethewatermoreeffectively,

continuingwastefulpractices.

WWFbelievesthatanynewinterbasinwater

transferschemeshouldbeapproachedin

accordancewiththeprinciplessetoutby

theWorldCommissiononDams(2000).

Firstandforemostthismeansthatany

schemeunderconsiderationshouldbe

subjecttoacomprehensive‘Needsand

Options Assessment’, detailed cost-benefit

andriskanalysesthatconsiderthefullsuite

ofpotentialenvironmentalandsocialand

economicimpacts.

Asadvocatedinsection5ofthisreport,

inmovingtoexaminethealternativesto

anIBT,WWFrecommendsthefollowing

step-wiseapproach,ideallyconsidered

atawhole-of-river-basinlevel,through

anintegratedplanningprocess.The

alternativesshouldbeconsideredinthe

followingorder:

1Reducingwaterdemands;

�Recyclingwastewater;

3Supplementingwatersupplieslocally,

�ConsideringanIBT,asalastoption.

Throughthevehicleofthisreport,WWF

callsonalldecisionmakerstofollowthe

stepsoutlinedabovewhenconsidering

howtomeetwaterneedsinareasof

scarcity.Thereisaneedtorecognisethat

interbasinwatertransferareinmostcases

a“pipedream”andthatthetakingofwater

from one river to another usually reflects

ignoranceofthesocialandenvironmental

costsandafailuretoadequatelyconsider

better,localalternatives,suchasimproved

managementoflocaldemand.

Pipedreams? Page 5

1 Introduction

As the world faces increasing insecurity about its water supplies – with both droughts

and floods on the increase - the world water crisis is more and more frequently in

the news. The planet urgently needs to face the dilemma of how to secure access

to adequate water resources for expanding populations and economies, whilst

maintaining healthy freshwater ecosystems and the vital services they provide.

Tothosewhoseetheworld’swater

balanceasascoresheetofshortagesand

surpluses,oneoftheobvioussolutions

tomeetingwaterdemandsisthetransfer

ofwaterfromareaswithperceived

surpluses,tothosewithshortages.Over

thecenturies,suchtransfershavegenerally

beenrestrictedtowithinriverbasins,but

increasinglylargequantitiesofwaterare

beingtransportedoverlongdistances,from

oneriverbasintoanother.

Whilethesesonamed‘interbasinwater

transfers’(IBTs)canpotentiallysolvewater

supplyissuesinregionsofwatershortage,

they come with significant costs.

LargescaleIBTschemesaretypically

veryhighcost,andthuseconomically

risky,andtheyusuallyalsocomewith

significant social and environmental

costs,usuallyforboththeriverbasin

providingandtheriverbasinreceiving

thewater.

ThewiderangeofIBTprojectsinplace,or

proposed,hasprovokedthepreparation

ofthisreview.Itexaminesthecostsand

benefits of large scale IBTs as a solution to

watersupplyproblemsinthefuture,aswell

asanalysingthelessonslearntfromsome

existingschemes.

Thereportalsoconsiderssomeproposed

IBTschemesthathavebeenunder

considerationforanumberofyears

andthataretodayinvariousstages

ofdevelopment.Theseschemesare

examinedtoestablishiftheyarethebest

solutionforaddressingtheproblemsthey

seektosolve.Foreach,theeconomic

and environmental risks are identified and

alternativestotheconstructionoftheIBT

areconsidered.

Thisreviewconcludesbysettingout(in

section5)adecision-makinghierarchyor

step-wiseprocessbywhichanyproposed

IBTscanbereviewedtodetermineif

theyaretrulyneeded,andtoensurethat

allotherfeasiblealternativeshavebeen

consideredbeforemovingtothehighrisk

strategyofconstructingandoperatingan

IBTscheme.

©B

iksh

amG

ujja

Pipedreams? Page �

� Interbasin water transfers – the context

�.1 The World water crisis

Since the launch of the first United Nations World Water Development Report ‘Water

for People, Water for Life’ in �003 the term ‘world water crisis’ has frequently made

headlines. The report states “We are in the midst of a water crisis that has many

faces. Whether concerning issues of health or sanitation, environment or cities, food,

industry or energy production, the twenty-first century is the century in which the

overriding problem is one of water quality and management.” (UN/WWAP, �003).

Ontheground,thecrisismanifestsitselfin

avarietyofhydrologicaleventsthataffect

peopleallovertheworld–seeBox1.

Box1:HydrologicaleventsinAugust

2006–aselection

InChina,theXinhuaNewsAgency(29

August2006)reportedthatdroughtin

theSichuanProvinceandChongqing

areasisaffectingthedrinkingwater

suppliesformorethan17millionpeople.

InIndia,BarmerdistrictintheRajasthan

Thardesert,usuallypronetoextensive

droughts,wasstruckbyheavyrainsin

August2006.Eyewitnessesreported

‘adesertturnedintoasea’andatleast

130peoplewerekilled,whilethousands

weredisplacedfromtheirhomes.

IntheUnitedStates,aseveredrought

isaffectingmanyofthePlainsStates,

includingNorthandSouthDakota,

MontanaandWyoming,severely

affectingagriculturaloutputsinthese

areasandforcingmanyrancherstosell

offtheircattle.

InAustralia,aseveredroughthas

allmajorcitiesinsouthernAustralia

onseverewaterrestrictionsand

governmentshaveagreedon

contingencyplansincasethe

MurrayRiver,themajorriverof

south-east Australia, stops flowing

incomingmonths.

ThesecondeditionoftheWorldWater

DevelopmentReport,‘Water,ashared

responsibility’(UNESCO/WWAP,2006)

focusesonthechangingcontextswithin

whichwatermanagershavetomanage

scarce resources. It identifies a number

offactorsthataffecttheavailability

ofwateraswellasitsmanagement,

includingwidespreadpoverty,malnutrition,

demographicchange,growingurbanization,

theeffectsofglobalizationandthe

manifestationsofclimatechange.

Pipedreams? Page �

�.� The escalating demands for water

Freshwaterisvitaltohumansurvivaland

ingeneralpeoplehavesettledinareas

withsustainable,local,watersupplies.

Growingpopulations,increasing

urbanisationandintensiveagricultureresult

inover-exploitationofwaterresourcesand

inmanyplaceshumanwateruse,domestic,

industrialandagricultural,exceedsaverage

annualwatersupplies.

Areasofhighwateroverusetendto

occurinregionsthatarestrongly

dependentonirrigatedagriculture,such

astheIndo-GangeticPlaininSouthAsia,

theNorthChinaPlainandtheHighPlains

inNorthAmerica.

Theurbanconcentrationofwaterdemand

addsahighlylocalizeddimensionto

thesebroadergeographictrends.Where

wateruseexceedslocalsupplies,society

isdependentoninfrastructure,suchas

pipelinesandcanals,totransportwater

overlongdistances.Inconjunctionwith

this,thereisincreasingrelianceon

groundwaterextraction.

Theconsequencesofwateroveruse

include:

1 diminished river flows;

�depletionofgroundwaterreserves;

3 reduction of environmental flows needed

tosustainaquaticecosystemsandthe

associatedservicesneededbypeople;

and,

� potential societal conflict

�.3 The world water crisis and impacts on freshwater ecosystems

Themeasurestakentosecureadequate

watersuppliesforhumanpopulations

inevitablyaffectfreshwaterecosystems.

AccordingtotheWWFLivingPlanetIndex

(WWF,2004a),populationsoffreshwater

speciesshowedadeclineofover30per

centfrom1970to2003.

Thisdeclineinfreshwaterspeciesis

attributedtofactorssuchas:

1 infrastructuredevelopment(likedams,

interandintrabasinwatertransfers,

canalization, flood-control, river diversions

andlarge-scaleirrigation);

�deforestation;

3overharvesting;

�alieninvasivespecies;

5unsustainableagriculturepractices

(cultivating‘thirstycrops’);and,

�urbanandindustrialpollution.

Thesedriverschangethecharacteristicof

riverbasinsandtheirecosystemsinmany

ways.Forexample,damsinterruptthe

connectivityofriversystemsandtherefore

disrupt fish spawning and migration. Water

transfers alter natural flow regimes, reduce

downstreamwateravailabilityforagriculture

andcontributetosalinisationandwatertable

loweringincoastalareas.Theycanalso

facilitatethetransferofinvasivealienspecies

withinorbetweenriverbasins.

TheMillenniumEcosystemAssessment

(MEA,2005)statesthat“damsandother

infrastructurefragment60percentofthelarge

riversystemsintheworld”.WWFestimates

thatonlyone-thirdoftheworld’s177large

rivers (over 1,000 km long) remain free flowing

fromsourcetosea(WWF,2006b).

Note: This figure presents the results of the river fragmentation and flow regulation assessment by Nilsson et al., (2005). Of 292 of the world’s Large River Systems (LRS), 173 are either

Map1:Fragmentation and flow regulation by Large River System (LRS), (Nilsson et al, 2005)

strongly or moderately affected by dams; while 119 are considered unaffected. In terms of areas, strongly affected systems constitute the majority (52 per cent or about 4,367 km2) of total

LRS catchment areas. The grey colour represents potential LRSs in Indonesia and Malaysia that were not assessed due to lack of data.

NotaffectedModeratelyaffectedStronglyaffected

Pipedreams? Page �

3 What can we learn from existing interbasin water transfer schemes

Interbasin water transfer schemes are not a new phenomenon. Like the outbreak

of dam building that marked the last half of the 1900s, interbasin water transfer are

now widely touted as the quick fix solution to meeting escalating demands for water,

to stoke the fires of economic development, and to feed rapidly growing human

populations.

ExaminingtheimpactsofexistingIBTs

is quite instructive. It provides significant

lessonsweshouldlearnasthepace

withwhichnewschemesarebeing

formulatedandbroughtforwardfor

considerationquickens.

Interbasintransfers-planned,completed

orbeingconceived-numberinthe

hundreds.Noriverbasinisimmune

itseemsfromtheeasyattractionof

becomingadonororrecipientbasin.

Transferschemesrunthegamut:Japan’s

TotsukawatoKinokawaRiver,Chile’sTeno-

ChimbarangoCanal,France’sDuranceriver

project,Morocco’sBeriBoussaprojectand

onandon.

ThediversionoftheAralSeatributaries

withanotsohappyendingisoneofthe

bestknownschemesforallthewrong

reasons: salinity, water and fish decline

andhealthproblems.Bigorsmall,transfer

schemesareoftenexpensive,elaborate,

andunsustainablewaysthatcomplicate,

notsolve,waterproblems.Thefollowing

pagesdescribethreecasesofexistingIBTs

followedbyfourcasesintheworks.

©F

.Vre

ttou

/W

WF-

Gre

ece

Pipedreams? Page 9

About this IBT

TheTagus-SeguraIBTinSpainisa286

kmlongpipelineconnectingthreedifferent

Spanishriverbasins;theTagus,Júcarand

Segura.Ithasbeenoperativesince1978.

Itsmainobjectivewastosolvean

estimated water deficit of 0.5 km3/yrinthe

recipientareaandtoensurewatersupply

for147,000hectaresofirrigationand76

municipalitiesinsouth-eastSpain.

Thepipelinestartsattwodamsinthe

UpperTagus,withastoragecapacityof

approximately2.4km3,andfacilitatesa

transferof1km3/yrtowardstheTalaveDam

intheMundoRiver.

Theactualtransfersarevariableand

dependontheexistingresourcesinthe

Tagusbasin.Usuallyaround0.2-0.4km3of

wateristransferredannually.Inonlyafew

yearsinthelastdecadehasthefulllegal

transferof0.6km3beentransferred.

Indroughtyears,oncethewaterstoragein

theTagusdamsislowerthan0.24km3,the

transfersapproachzero.

OnceintheSegurabasin,thetransferred

watergetsmixedwithlocaldesalinised,

surfaceandgroundwaterinaregion-wide

networkofpipes,damsandstorageponds.

Analysis

Ratherthansolvingawatershortagein

theSegurabasin,theextensivewater

infrastructurehasbecomeadriverfor

unsustainableuseofwater,fosteringthe

uncontrolledincreaseofirrigatedareasand

ofurbandevelopmentonthecoast.

AccordingtoArrojo(2001),theoriginal

planwasforthisIBTtosupport

approximately50,000haofirrigatedarea.

Uncontrolledexpansionofirrigationsaw

this figure grow to nearly 88,000 ha, despite

annual flows from the IBT being around

one-thirdofthatprojected.

Case study 1 Tagus-Segura Transfer - Spain

Moreover,theconstructionoftheIBThas

fosteredaproliferationofillegalboreholes,

which are significantly contributing to over-

exploitationoftheaquifers.

Asaresult,theIBThasmultipliedtheinitial

‘water deficit’ that it was supposed to solve

andhascreatedastrongdependence

oftheeconomyintherecipientregion

ontheIBT.

AlthoughtheIBTwasbasedonasupposed

watersurplus,theTagusbasinhas

experiencedsubstantialenvironmental

impactsfromthewaterdiversion.Legal

minimum stream flow requirements are

oftennotmetandtheriverissufferingfrom

anincreaseinpollution.

Another impact is that on endemic fish

species.Thetransferofspeciesbetween

thebasinsisthreatening,through

hybridisation,theminnow(Chondrostoma

arrigonis)whichisendemicintheJúcar

Riverandlistedasacriticallyendangered

species(IUCNRedList,2006).

TheIBThasbecomeamajorcatalystfor

conflicts between the donor and benefiting

regions.Improveddemandmanagement

intherecipientarea,throughtheclosing

downofillegalwells,preventingthe

creationofnewirrigatedareasand

promotingmoresustainableurbanlanduse,

wouldhelptoreducethesetensions.

However,demandisexpectedtocontinue

toincreasealongtheMurciacoastline

whereapproximately50newgolfcourses,

with 114,850 new flats are planned to be

builtinaneightyeartimeframe.

Inordertoincreasewateravailabilityinthe

region,thepresentSpanishGovernment

isplanningtofosterdesalinisation,

mainlyforurbansupply,andtreated,

recycledwastewater.

Pipedreams? Page 10

Summary

Where Tagus – Segura Transfer, Spain

When 1978 completed

Receiving basin Segura basin

Donating basin Tagus (upstream)

Distance 286 km main pipe

Volume diverted 0.6 km3/yr

Structures 5 dams, 286 km pipe, network of post-transfer distribution

Cost Not known

Purposes • Irrigation • Urban water supply (coastal urban and tourism development)

Environmental • Reduction in stream flow in donor basincost/benefits • Increased threat level for critically endangered fish species

Social • Social conflictscost/benefits • Increase of water consumption

Alternatives • Close down illegal wells and irrigation • Promote sustainable urban land use • Restrict construction of golf courses in the Murcia region • Recycle wastewater

Lessons learnt • Increasing water availability from an IBT can become a driver for unsustainable water use in the receiving area • IBTs should be accompanied by strict measures to curb water demand in the receiving area

Pipedreams? Page 11

Case study � Snowy River Scheme – Australia

About this IBT

TheGreatDividingRangeinsouth-eastern

Australiaisanimportantsourceofwater,

includingfortheSnowyRiver,whichdrains

tothesouth-east.Theprospectofdamming

theSnowyRiver,anddivertingitswatersto

thewesternsideoftheGreatDivideintothe

MurrayRiverbasinforthedualpurposeof

hydropowerandirrigation,datesbackto1884.

Theschemewaseventuallyconstructedbythe

nationalandtwostategovernments(Victoria

andNewSouthWales)atacostofAUD$820

million(US$630million)between1949and

1974andcomprises16largedams,seven

hydropowerstations,over145kmoftunnels

andabout80kmofaqueducts,mostlylocated

inKosciuszkoNationalPark.

Theschemehasatotalwaterstoragecapacity

of7km3andelectricitygeneratingcapacityof

3,756MW,16%ofthetotalcapacityinsouth-

eastAustralia.

Analysis

Theschemehasyieldedsubstantialeconomic

benefits, as apart from hydropower, it diverts

1.1km3/yrofwaterintotheMurray-Darling

Basinforirrigation;resultinginanestimatedUS

$115-145millionperyearofvalueadded.

Theschemehasalsofacilitatedaccessfor

recreationandtourismattractions(3million

visitorsperyear)byroadsservicingthe

scheme(estimatedataboutUS$118million

ayear),aswellasassociatedemployment

opportunities.

However,theenvironmentalimpactson

the Snowy River have been severe. Its flow

wasreducedby99%belowtheJindabyne

dam resulting in a loss of floodplain wetland

habitats;siltingupoftheriverchanneland

invasionbyexotictrees,saltwaterintrusion

into the estuary and loss of migratory fish

populations.

Whenthegovernmentownersofthescheme

movedtocorporatisetheSnowyMountains

HydroelectricCorporation,asapossible

preludetoprivatization(sinceabandoned

in2006),residentsdownstreamonthe

Snowy River demanded that river flows were

restored first. They feared that if these flows

wereproposedaftercorporatisationthe

compensationpayabletotheschemeowners

forlossofincomefromelectricitygeneration,

salesofwatertoirrigatorsandinrenovating

infrastructure,wouldbeprohibitive.

ThedemandtorestoretheSnowycreated

conflict with the downstream states and

communitiesalongtheMurrayRiver,which

receiveswaterdivertedbytheSnowy

scheme.TheMurrayRiverhas80%ofits

average annual flow diverted for irrigation.

Apartfrompossibleimpactonirrigation,any

reductionofwaterthreatenedtoaccelerate

theenvironmentalcollapseoftheMurrayRiver

anditsmanyservices,includinganumber

ofRamsar-listedWetlandsofInternational

Importance.

Avocalcommunitycampaignledtoapublic

inquiry.Duringthis,scientistsestimatedthat

restoring the Snowy River’s flow to 28% was

theminimumrequiredtorestorethemost

damagedportionoftherivertoamorenatural

condition and re-establish fish populations.

In2002thenationalandstategovernments

signedanagreementtoundopartofthewater

transferstopartlyrestoreSnowyRiverflows.

©W

WF-

Aus

tral

ia

Pipedreams? Page 1�

The targets are to return flows to 15% (0.14

km3/yr)ofnaturalinyears1-7,to21%(0.21

km3/yr)inyears7-10,and,undercertain

conditions,upto28%(0.29km3/yr)after

year10.

Thegovernmentsinvolvedhaveallocated

AUD$375million(US$289million)tothe

‘WaterforRivers’companytosecure0.28

km3/yrwaterforenvironmentalreleases(0.21

km3/yr for the Snowy - to restore flows to

21%,and0.07km3/yrfortheMurray).This

isbeingsoughtthroughinvestinginwater

savingsprojectstocompensateforthe

reductionofwatersupplyintotheMurray-

DarlingBasin.

Inpracticethese‘watersavings’areproving

difficult to deliver. The Jindabyne Dam could

notreleasetheincreasedenvironmental

flow to the Snowy River, and so a new

outlet,spillwayandhydroelectricplantare

being retrofitted to the dam at a cost of

Summary

Where Snowy River Scheme, Australia

When From 1949 until now

Receiving basin Murray-Darling Basin

Donating basin Snowy River

Distance Less than 100 km

Volume diverted 1.1 km3/yr of water into the Murray-Darling Basin for irrigation

Structures 16 large dams, seven hydropower stations, over 145 km of tunnels and about 80 km of aqueducts

Cost AUD $820 million (US $630 million) to initial construction

Purposes • Hydropower • Irrigation

Environmental • Snowy River flow reduced by 99% below the Jindabyne dam of its natural flow, resulting in loss of wetland habitat, silting up of the river channel, invasion by exotic trees, salt cost/benefits water intrusion in the estuary and loss of migratory fish populations • Diverted water has helped (in part) to retain ecological values of Ramsar wetlands and the river channel of the recipient river, the Murray; a grossly over-allocated system

Social • For the communities of the Snowy River the costs were loss of income, amenity values and a natural assetcost/benefits • Communities of the recipient Murray benefited, irrigators especially. The IBT created significant employment locally, was seen as a nation building project, which now has opened up the region to tourism etc

Alternatives • Electricity generation was possible without the IBT diverting water from the Snowy River, which was seen at that time as expendable in the national interest • More efficient irrigation practices along the recipient river could have allowed an expansion of agriculture without the IBT

Lessons learnt • Projects that don’t adequately consider the full costs and benefits, including on natural assets, and their associated communities, cause conflict for decades • Even partial restoration of diverted flows is very expensive. Upfront provision of environmental flows would have significantly reduced the costs • No consideration was given to demand management (improved water use efficiencies) in the recipient basin at the time the IBT was devised

AUD90million(US$69million)(Snowy

Hydro,2006).Atpresentthereisaproposal

forthenationalgovernmenttoassume

controlofwatermanagementacrossthis

Basin,representingone-seventhofthe

Australianlandmass,andforAUD$10billion

to go towards ramping up water efficiency

measuresintheirrigationsectorandtobuy

backwaterlicencestoprovideenhanced

environmental flows. This should assist with

meeting the projected flow return targets for

theSnowyRiver.

Despitethepromisingpoliticalcommitment

to restoring some environmental flows to the

SnowyRiver,keyaspectsoftheagreement

havenotbeenhonouredbythegovernments

so far. For example, the Snowy Scientific

CommitteethatisrequiredundertheSnowy

HydroCorporatisationActofNewSouth

Walestosupervisetheimplementationofthe

agreementandissueanannual,publicreport

hasnotbeenestablished.

Pipedreams? Page 13

Case study 3 Lesotho Highland Water Project - Lesotho and South Africa

About this IBT

Theprincipalnaturalresourceoftheland-

lockedLesothoisitswater,withanumber

ofriversoriginatingintheDrakensberg

Mountains.ThelargestoftheseistheOrange

River(knownastheSenquinLesotho).

In1986,SouthAfricaandLesothosigned

abilateraltreatyestablishingtheLesotho

HighlandWaterProject(LHWP).TheLHWP

aims to reverse the southerly flow of the

Senqu/OrangeRiverinLesothototheVaal

Riverinthenorththroughtheconstruction

of five dams, 200 km of tunnels and two

pumpingstations.

By2020,some2.5km3ofwaterperyearis

tobeexportedtoGauteng,SouthAfrica’s

mostindustrialisedprovince.Inaddition,

about90MWofpowerwouldbegenerated

foruseinLesotho.

Thetotalcostoftheprojectwasexpectedto

beaboutUS$4billionbutrecentestimates

suggest the final figure will be nearer to US

$8billion.TheLHWPistodaythelargest

infra-structureprojectinsouthernAfrica

andisbeingimplementedinseveralstages.

ConstructionofPhase1Awasundertaken

between1989and1998andatpresentthe

LHWPtransfersmorethan0.5km3ofwater

peryearintotheVaalRiver.

PhaseIBoftheprojectbeganin1998and

aimstoincreasethetotalwatertransferrate

from18m3/sto30m3/s.

InMarch2004,theMohaleDam(Phase

IB) was inaugurated and the final phase of

theprojectisintendedtoprovideadditional

waterandpowergenerationfromtwomore

dams.CurrentlytheGovernmentofLesotho

isengagingintwonewlarge-scalewater

developments:PhaseIIoftheHighlands

WaterProject(LHWP)andtheLesotho

LowlandsWaterScheme(LLWS)(TRC,2005).

Analysis

TheLHWPbeganwithoutanenvironmental

impactassessmentfortheoverallproject.

ThereisstillnosuchreportforPhase1A,

althoughsome35baselinestudiesofthe

flora and fauna of the area were done after

constructionbegan.

AfullEIAhasbeendoneforPhase1B,and

anenvironmentalactionplanprepared,but

neitheraddressesoutstandingproblems

fromPhase1A.

OfconcernareimpactsoftheIBTon

remnantpopulationsofthecritically

endangeredMalotiminnow(Pseudobarbus

quathlambae).Habitatsarethreatenedand

theIBTcouldseetroutmoveintotheseas

well,furtherincreasingtherisksofextinction

(Swartzet al,2001).

Eventually, some 40% of the flow of the

OrangeRiverwillbedivertedtotheVaal.

A diversion of river flow on this scale will

reducetheamountofwateravailableto

dilutepollutingdischarges,increasingthe

riskofde-oxygenationandeutrophication,

anddisturbingspeciesdependentonrapid

flows. Additional flows in the Vaal River

mayalsoincreasebankerosionandcause

alterationsintheriverbed.

Ithasbeenestimatedthatthecostof

mitigatingthebiophysicalandsocial

impactswillbebetweenUS$2.8million

andUS$4.2millionannually.Around

30,000peoplehavebeenaffectedbythe

constructionworksand325households

hadtobepermanentlyrelocated.More

than2,300haofagriculturallandand

3,400haofpastureswerelostandthere

havebeenreportsofslowandinadequate

compensation.

Lesothohasgainedimmenseeconomic

benefits from the project with over US $80

millioninroyaltiessince1998,amountingto

27.8percentofallgovernmentrevenue.

Pipedreams? Page 1�

Lesothonowgeneratesenoughelectricity

toexporttheexcessandtherehasbeena

considerableimprovementininfrastructure

(roads,schools,watersupply)andsome

7,000jobshavebeencreated.However,

thereareconcernsthatthepooresthave

still not seen any benefits.

Also,theprojecthasbeenplagued

bycorruptionandtwointernational

engineering firms have been convicted

forbribery(TRC,2005).

Thereareindicationsthatdemand

managementalternativestotheIBThave

notbeenconsideredadequately.Gauteng’s

waterutilityRandWaterhascalculated

thatwatersavingsofjust10%couldhave

delayedtheneedforoneoftheschemes’

damsbyseveralyears.Yet,construction

oftheschemecontinuesatarapidpace,

andtopayitsportionofthecapitalcosts,

RandWaterhashadtoincreaseprices

andneedstosellmorewater,notless.The

newchargesarebeyondtheabilityofthe

poorestfamiliestopay(restrictingthemto

thelegalminimumrequiredbytheSouth

AfricanConstitution).TosupplyGauteng’s

waterlesspoorwouldrequirejust5%of

thewaterusedbymiddleincomeSouth

Africansongardens.

Summary

Where Lesotho / South Africa: Lesotho Highlands Water Project

When Started in 1986 and ongoing; Phase 1 (most important) of 4 completed

Receiving basin Vaal River system

Donating basin Orange/Senqu River catchment

Distance 200 km of tunnel

Volume diverted 0.63-0.82 km3/yr

Structures 5 dams, 200 km tunnels; hydropower plant (ready: 3 dams; 118.4 km tunnel and hydropower plant)

Cost First phase US$ 4 billion (total about US$ 8 billion by 2020)

Purposes • Water supply for South Africa’s Gauteng industry region • Electricity, royalties and infrastructure for Lesotho

Environmental • Reduced flow rates and less–frequent floods of the Lesotho river basinscost/benefits • Several populations of critically endangered Maloti minnow threatened

Social • When completed will dispossess more than 30,000 (now about 20,000) rural farmers of cost/benefits assets (including homes, fields, and grazing lands) and deprive many of their livelihoods • The loss of arable land would increase Lesotho’s dependence on foreign food imports; indeed, the project would cause the loss of 11,000 hectares of grazing or arable land

Alternatives • Manage demand better by using mechanisms outlined in South Africa’s Water Act 1998 often seen as a global model • Promote water reuse and recycling among leading industry players in the basin

Lessons learnt • Project failed to examine environmental or social impacts from the outset, and the mitigation costs these would require • The capital costs for these types of projects are frequently much greater than the proponents first claim, as was the case here (World Commission on Dams, 2000) • No consideration was given to demand management as a way to delay construction of IBT • Poor governance can lead to poor decisions and greater costs, as shown by the allegations of corruption

Pipedreams? Page 15

Conclusions - summary of lessons learned

TheprecedingcasestudiesdescribingIBTschemesfromthreedifferentpartsoftheWorld

illustratewellanumberofthecommon,negativeimpactsoftheseschemes.Table1below

Fromtheabovethereareseveralkey

lessonsthatcanbelearned,asfollows:

1Beforeprogressingtocommissionan

IBT,thereshouldbeacomprehensive

assessmentofthealternativesavailable

forprovidingthewaterneededinthe

proposedrecipientbasin.Canthis

waterbeprovidedthroughdemand

management,waterrecycling,water

harvestingetc,beforeconsidering

amajor(andusuallyhighcost)

infrastructureinvestmentwithits

environmentalandsocialimpacts?

� Undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the

likelyimpactsoftheIBTonboththe

donorandrecipientbasins,considering

thefullrangeofenvironmental,socialand

economicimplications.

3Ensurerisksassociatedwiththe

proposedIBTenvironmental,socialand

economicareclearlyunderstood,and

iftheprojectproceeds,governance

arrangementsareadequatetomanage

andminimisetheserisks.

�Undertakeconsultationswiththelikely

directlyandindirectlyaffectedpeople,

beforeadecisionistakenregarding

thepossibleIBT(andcertainlybeforeit

becomesfaitaccompli)ensuringthey

understandandhavetheopportunity

to voice views on likely cost, benefits

andrisks.

Notethattheaboveapproachisthat

advocatedasa‘NeedsandOptions’

assessmentinthereportoftheWorld

CommissiononDams(2000).

Table 1: Negative impacts of IBT Case study

1 Tagus-Segura 2 Snowy River, 3 Lesotho Highlands Water Transfer, Spain Australia Project, Lesotho and South Africa

Demand management in recipient basin not serious part of pre-planning for IBT, leading to on-going water wastage 3 3 3IBT became driver for unsustainable water use in recipient basin– irrigation and urban 3 3

Created strong dependence on IBT in recipient community 3 3 3IBT now seen as inadequate and other water supplementation required (groundwater, desalinisation, recycling etc) 3 3

Saw proliferation of boreholes to access groundwater – leading to over-exploitation of this resource too 3

Donor basin experienced serious environmental impacts through reduced flows especially 3 3 3IBT created or escalated threats to critically endangered, threatened species etc 3 3Scheme saw economic benefits in recipient basin at the cost of communities in the donor basin 3 3 3IBT catalyst for social conflict between donor and recipient basins or with government 3 3 IBT has not helped the situation of the poor affected or displaced by it 3Post IBT mitigation costs very high, either environmentally or socially 3 3 3Governance arrangements for IBT weak, resulting in budget blow-out or corruption 3

Pipedreams? Page 1�

� In the pipeline – interbasin water transfers in the future

Despite less than positive experiences with large scale interbasin water transfers,

many decision makers are today still looking towards them as a solution to water

supply problems.

Manyambitiousprojectsareunder

considerationatpresent.Thisincludesa

numberofschemesthatwilltransferwater

overthousandsofkilometres,aswellas

manyotherschemesthatarelessgrand

inscale.

Globallythereisnosinglesourceof

informationonthenumbersandkindsof

IBTsthatareplannedandmostschemes

beingdevelopedwithincountries.

Insomecountriesplansexisttonotjust

transferwaterfromonebasintoanother,

buttotransferwateracrossseveralriver

basins.PlansforIBTsarealsonotlimited

tocountriesthatasyethavenonegative

experienceswiththem.Proponentsin

Australiaforexample,despitethevast

amountsofmoneybeingspentonrestoring

some of the flows in the Snowy River

system,stillhaveplansforlargewater

supplyschemesthatinvolvetransfersfrom

riverbasinsinthetropicalnorthtothe

currentlydroughtstrickensouthernpartsof

thecontinent.

©B

iksh

amG

ujja

Pipedreams? Page 1�

Case study � Acheloos Diversion, Greece

Why an IBT

The220kmlongAcheloosRiveroriginates

inthePindosmountainrangeandruns

southwardsthroughWesternGreeceto

theIonianSea.Thelowerreachesofthe

riveraredevelopedforhydro-electricityat

theKastrakiandKremastadams,butthere

areplanstodivertitswaterseastwards

totheThessalyplains,animportant

agriculturalregion.

Thediversionplansdatebacktothe

1930s,butconcreteproposalswerenot

developeduntilthe1980s,whentheGreek

governmentexpresseditsintentionto

implementtheUpperAcheloosDiversion

Project,designedtotransferupto0.6km3

ofwaterperyeartoThessaly.

Thegovernment’svisionistobringtogether

twoofGreece’smostimportantnatural

resources-theAcheloosRiverandthe

Thessaly plain - for the benefit of the

nationaleconomy.

AnumberofdecisionsbytheCouncilof

State(Greece’sSupremeCourt)inthe

1990sandin2005declaredtheproject

illegal,onthegroundsthatitviolatedGreek

andEUlegislationonwatermanagement,

GreeklegislationonEIAandinternational

legislationonthepreservationofcultural

heritage.Nevertheless,thediversionisstill

ontheGreekpoliticalagendatodayand

supportremainsstrong.InJuly2006the

projectwasdeclaredaplanof“national

importance”andapprovedbylaw,thus

bypassingthelegalobstacleofthe

SupremeCourtrulings.

Expected environmental and social impacts

Theprojectisexpectedtocauseirreversible

damagetoecosystemsofexceptional

ecologicalvalueandcouldbringabout

localextinctionsofseveralpopulationsof

endangeredandinternationallyprotected

species,includingotter(Lutra lutra),trout

(Salmo trutta)anddipper(Cinclus cinclus).

Populationsofotherspeciessuchasgrey

wolf(Canis lupus),wildcat(Felis silvestris)

androedeer(Capreolus capreolus)are

expectedtobeseriouslydisturbedboth

duringandafterconstructionbyalterations

tothelandscape.Thepristineforest

ecosystemsoftheareawillbeseriously

damagedthroughtheopeningofroads

duringtheconstructionandoperational

phasesofthedams.

TheriverinehabitatsoftheSouthernPindos

facetheprospectofpermanentalterations

duetotheconstructionofdeepreservoirs.

Traditionalwoodenbridge

at upper Acheloos River,

Greece

©W

WF

/V.

Psi

hogi

ou

A look at 4 proposed IBTs

Pipedreams? Page 1�

Furtherdownstream,theRamsar-listed

wetlandsoftheMessolongiLagoons

Complex,asiteofglobalornithological

significance, are expected to suffer from

seriousreductioninfreshwaterinput.The

AcheloosValleyandDeltahavealsobeen

includedinthenationalNatura2000list.

Theconstructionworksinfragilemountain

ecosystemsarealsolikelytoexacerbate

soilerosionandlandslidesandlarge

tractsoflandwillbeinundatedbythe

mainreservoirs.

Thediversionprojectisalsoexpectedto

haveserioussocio-economicandcultural

impacts.Theseincludedestructionof

importantculturalmonumentssuchthe

11thcenturymonasteryofStGeorgeof

Myrophyllo,andanumberofstonebridges

whichwillbeinundated.

Analysis

Economically,thesustainabilityofthisIBT

project is questionable. A cost-benefit

analysisdonein1988,onbehalfofthe

MinistryofNationalEconomy,concluded

thateveniftheconstructionandoperational

timetablesweremet,theprojectwasonly

marginally in the ‘black’ financially.

Theprojectisdrivenbythewishtoincrease

agriculturaloutputinThessaly,butwater

supplyproblemsinthatregioncanbe

largelyattributedtothemismanagement

ofitswaterresourcesforirrigation,and

thewidespreadcultivationofcotton,a

waterintensive(‘thirsty’)crop.Infact,

theeconomicviabilityoftheprojectis

dependantoncottonfarming,whichisat

presentheavilysubsidised;thesesubsidies

perkilogramofcropbeingclosetothe

worldmarketprice.Cottonsubsidiesare

seriouslyquestionedintheframeworkof

thereformedEUCommonAgricultural

Policyandareexpectedtobephasedout

intheyearstocome.However,Greece

continuestosupportintensivecotton

productionandseemsunwillingtoplanfor

asmoothshifttowardsthecultivationof

less‘thirsty’crops.

Thessalyisnaturallycharacterisedbya

richnetworkofstreamsandwetlands.

However,theuseofinappropriateirrigation

methods,thatresultinlargequantitiesof

waterbeingwasted,havecausedmajor

waterproblems,includingasharpfallofthe

groundwatertableduetouncontrolledbore

holedrilling,andsubsequentsalinisationof

thesoil.

RatherthanalargescaleIBT,the

constructionofaseriesofsmallreservoirs

intheriversofThessalywouldguarantee

betterdistributionofirrigationwaterand

alsobemorecosteffective.

MouthofAcheloosRiver

inCentralGreece©

WW

F/

D.V

asilia

dis

Pipedreams? Page 19

Summary

Where Upper Acheloos Diversion Project - Greece

When • Original plan dates to 1930s • Designed in 1980s – currently under construction

What Receiving basin Plain of Thessaly

Donating basin Acheloos

Distance 174 km

Volume diverted 0.6 km3/yr

Structures • Mesochora mega dam (150 m. high) and Mesochora reservoir (228 m3 volume) • Mesochora – Glystra tunnel (7.5 kilometres long) • Sykia mega dam (150 m. high) and Sykia reservoir (502 m3 volume) • Sykia diversion channel to Thessaly (17,400 m. long) • Mouzaki major dam (135 m. high) and Mouzaki reservoir (530 m3) • Pyli dam (90 m. high) and Pyli reservoir (47 m3 volume) • Pyli – Mouzaki tunnel (8 kilometres long)

Cost Not known. Construction cost estimated at €720 million (USD 971 million). However total cost including necessary adaptations of irrigation networks, complementary infrastructures, maintenance and management have never been estimated. In 1996 total cost was estimated at €2.9-4.4 billion (USD 3.9-5.9 billion)

Why Purpose • Provision of irrigation water for 240,000 ha of land in Thessaly • Hydropower

Why not Environmental cost • Serious impacts on rare riverine and forest habitats and landscapes of South Pindos • Destruction of Greece’s most important habitat for the trout • Impacts on downstream freshwater habitats, including Ramsar and Natura 2000-listed areas, due to reduced flow • Extensive disruption of fragile mountain landscapes

Social cost • Loss of cultural heritage • Disruption of Southern Pindos communities • Use of large amounts of national funding to support unsustainable agricultural practices

Alternatives • Address mismanagement of water in Thessaly region • Construction of smaller reservoirs in rivers of Thessaly • Reduce production of ‘thirsty’ crops (cotton in this case) • Improve irrigation efficiency • Take measures to counteract falls in groundwater tables and soil salinisation

Pipedreams? Page �0

Case study 5 São Francisco Basin Interlinking Project, Brazil

Why an IBT

TheSãoFranciscoBasinInterlinking

Projectisdesignedtosupplywaterto12

millionpeopleinthesemi-aridregionof

PernambucoAgresteandthemetropolitan

areaofFortalezainnorth-eastBrazil.Itis

todosobycollectingwaterfromtheSão

FranciscoBasinbetweenSobradinhoand

ItaparicadamsinthestateofPernambuco.

Thisprojectinvolvestheconstructionof

canals,waterpumpingstations,small

reservoirsandhydroelectricplantsand

ispartoftheProgramforSustainable

DevelopmentoftheSemi-aridandSão

FranciscoRiverBasin.Costsareexpected

tobeatleastUSD2.38billionandjobs

generated,upto1million.

Designedin2000,theFederalGovernment

modified and released the proposal in 2004

and states that the project will benefit 12

millionpeople,irrigate300,000hectares,

contributetoonemillionjobsandprovide

asolutiontodrought.TheSãoFrancisco

RiverBasinCommittee,representedby

eightstates,agreesthatsupplyisimportant

butpubliclyexpressedconcernaboutthe

approachproposed.

AlthoughtheSãoFranciscoRiverBasin

Committeedidnotapprovetheproject,the

NationalWaterResourcesCouncildidin

February2006.

TheNationalWaterAgencyissueda20-

yearauthorizationforwaterusetothe

NationalIntegrationMinistry,onSeptember

22ndin2005,andalsoissuedthe

Certificate of Sustainability Evaluation for

WaterEngineeringfortheproject.

Althoughtheprojectisstillbeinganalysed

byEnvironmentMinistrytechnicians,the

civil works for the first phase of the project

arealreadyouttotender.

Becauseoftheexistingcontroversiesthe

projectwasnotinitiatedasBrazilwent

throughrecentelections.Nowtheelections

arecompleted,itisexpectedtheproject

willbere-startedwithgreaterpressureby

theFederalGovernmentandbygroups

interestedinitsimplementation.

Expected environmental and social impacts

AccordingtotheNationalIntegration

Ministry,environmentalimpactswillbe

minimalastheamountofwaterdivertedis

relativelysmall.

Despitethisview,theprojecthascaused

controversy,asopponents(includingstate

governmentinstitutionsoftheproposed

donorbasins,technicalcouncils,and

churches)claimedthemainuseforthe

waterwouldbeforirrigation,andnotjust

forhumansupply.Othercriticismscover

technicalandoperationalfeasibility,national

priorities,economics,justiceandsocial

value,environmentalaspectsandlegal

support,asfollows:

• Acontinuingfocusonlarge,expensive

waterengineeringprojectswhich

overlookimpactsonfreshwater

ecosystemsandtheuseofalternative,

environmentallyfriendlyandlowercost

interventions;

Map2:ProjectforInterlinking

SãoFranciscoBasintothe

North-eastern Basins

Source: National Integration Ministry, Brazil

A look at 4 proposed IBTs

Channels

Future channels

Barrages

Work in progress

Cities

Projected works

Axis

Receiving rivers

Pipedreams? Page �1

• Only 4% of the diverted water will benefit

thedispersedpopulation,26%willbe

forurbanandindustrialuseand80%for

irrigation;

• Temporarylossofjobsandincomesdue

tolandappropriations;

• Acontinuationofwhatisineffect

subsidizedagriculturewithoutfull

considerationofthesocial,economicand

environmentalcosts

• Lackofinvestments,trainingand

modernizationofwatermanagement

entities;

• Risks of conflict during the construction

works.

Specific environmental costs will derive

frombiodiversityloss,fragmentationof

nativevegetation,riskofintroducednon-

nativespeciespotentiallyharmfultopeople,

disrupted fishing due to more dams,

siltation,andwaterlossduetoevaporation

asthewatercycleisdisrupted.

TheUnion’sCountingCourt(TCU,in

Portuguese) concluded that the benefits

oftheIBTareoverestimatedandthecosts

areunderestimated.TheTCUpointedout

thattheproject’seffectivenessdependson

thecapabilityoftheFederalGovernment

tomanageanddistributewatertothe

populationoncompletionofthelink.The

TCU’sauditalsorecommendedthatthe

FederalGovernmentproceedtoafull

evaluationoftheprojectandrequesteda

plantoshowtheinterlinkingprocessesthat

willintegratealltheactions.

Theproposedprojectpresentsavery

complexsituation,withmanyconcerns

thatgobeyondthephysicalconstruction

issues.Therearepoliticalrivalriesbetween

theStateofBahia(againsttheconstruction)

andtheStateofCeará(infavour);the

perceptionbeingthattheIBTwouldgive

the latter more influence.

WWFBrazilhasstatedthatallpossible

alternativestotheIBTshouldbetaken

intoaccountbeforeadecisionistaken

toconstructsuchenormoushydrological

infrastructure.

Analysis

Thepossiblealternativeswerenot

adequatelyindicatedbytheEIRsuchas,

forexample:

1Demandmanagement,includingmore

efficient use of water with resultant

reductionoflosses;

�Revisionofwaterlicencesinlinewith

wateractuallyusedandneeded;

3 FederalGovernmentpriorityin

implementingtheSãoFranciscoBasin

andBrazilianSemi-AridIntegrated

SustainableDevelopmentProgram,

including:

• Rehabilitationofvulnerableand

environmentallydegradedbasinswith

aviewtoimprovingsanitationservices

andwatersupply,recoveryofriparian

forest,soilconservationandsolid

wastemanagement;

• National Action of Desertification

CombatandDroughtsEffects

MitigationProgramme(PAN-Brazil)

includingplantoreducetheriskof

expansionofsemi-aridareas;

• Strengtheningcapacitybuildingwith

localinstitutions;

Federalpartnershipswithstatesand

municipalities,aswellasbuilding

partnershipswithcivilsociety–NGOs

andtheregionalproductivesectors;

• Expandregionalpartnerships

• ImplementationofIntegratedRiver

BasinManagement;

• Provisionofwatersecurityforthe

dispersedpopulation;

• Developmentofregionaleconomiesto

allowbetterqualityoflifefortheriver

dwellingpeople;

• Conclusion of unfinished water

developmentprojects.

Pipedreams? Page ��

Summary

Where Brazil: Rio Sao Francisco Project

When • This project started during colonial period • It was taken up again by President Lula de Silva in 2000

What Receiving basin States of Ceara, Rio Grande do Norte, Pernambuco and Paraíba

Donating basin States of Minas Gerais, Goiás, Distrito Federal, Bahia, Sergipe, Alagoas

Distance The river is 2,700km long. The two canals total 720km

Structures Public supply and multiple uses, mainly for irrigation. Northern axis: 4 pumping stations, 22 canals, 6 tunnels, 26 small reservoirs, 2 hydroelectric plants of 40 megawatt and 12 megawatt capacity; Eastern axis: 5 pumping stations; 2 tunnels and 9 reservoirs

Cost US$ 2.38 billion

Why Purpose • Irrigation of about 330,000 hectares • Bring 2,092 km of dry riverbeds back to life • Discharge of 26-127m3/sec. Average is 53m3/sec.

Why not Environmental cost • Reduction in biodiversity of native aquatic communities in receiving basins • Loss and fragmentation of areas with native vegetation • Uncertainty about the adequacy of stream regimen determined

Social cost • Reduction of the hydroelectric capacity in the donating basin • Only large landowners and big businesses will benefit from the 3.9% increase in water availability in the receiving states

Alternatives • Demand management • Revision of water licences • Implementation of the São Francisco Basin and Brazilian Semi-Arid Integrated Sustainable Development Program • Rehabilitation and revitalization of the São Francisco River Basin • Increasing water availability by interlinking existing reservoirs and optimizing their operations • Promote examples as in “Pro-Agua Semi-Arido” helping to reduce water deficit by building canals in NE Brazil • Strengthen negotiations with river basin committees (RBC) – as in case of RBC for the Piracicaba, Capivari and Jundiai Rivers, establishing new rules that reduce volume of water to be transferred in the dry season

Pipedreams? Page �3

Case study � Olmos Transfer Project, Peru

Why an IBT

Theprospectofderivingwaterfromthe

HuancabambaRiverintheAmazonbasin

to irrigate the pampas of Olmos was first

proposedin1924.ThepampasofOlmoslie

onthecoastalstripofNorthernPeruandare

extensive, flat, sparsely populated areas with

verylittlerainfall.Thevegetationvariesfrom

deserttodryforests.

Afternumerousdelays,aprivate-public

partnershipwassignedbetweenthe

regionalgovernmentofLambayequeand

ProInversion(PeruvianAgencyforPromotion

andInvestment),andinlate2005drilling

commencedonthe19.3kmlongtunnel

throughtheAndesmountainstoirrigate

150,000haofland.

Itisexpectedtotaketwofurtheryearsto

completethetunnelandfourmoreyearsto

finish the first phase, including a dam and

conversionofanoilpipelinetocarrywater.

Thesecondphaseinvolvesahydropower

installationandthethirdtheirrigationsystem.

Expected environmental and social impacts

TheestimatedcostofthisIBTisUS$185

million,howevernoestimatesofthepotential

benefits are known.

Theenvironmentalandsocialdamagehow-

everislikelytobesubstantial.Thepresent

EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentonly

addresses the first phase and as such does

notaddressimpactsintheOlmosregion.

Duringthedrymonths(July-September)there

is usually very little supply flow available. At

thistimenoIBTwatershouldbetaken,and

onlythereservoirprovidewaterforelectricity

andirrigation.

AresolutionwaspassedinMay2006

tomaintaindischargeat1.7km3/yr.It

is debatable whether this is a sufficient

environmental flow.

AccordingtoZegarraet al(2006),no

measureshavebeentakensofartoavoid

theinevitableloggingofthevaluabledry

forest.Nolessthan66,000haofthese

forestsaregoingtobeconvertedinto

irrigated fields.

AcriticalaspectoftheOlmosTransfer

Projectisthestatusofthelandsthatwill

beconvertedtoirrigation.Tomakethe

projectattractiveforprivateinvestorsthe

governmentclaimedacertainareaof

land.Thiswasdoneinthe1990s.The

statereserved110,000ha;80,000haof

theSantoDomingodeOlmoscommunity

and30,000haoftheMórropecommunity.

Theexpropriationoftheseareasfromthe

communityofSantoDomingodeOlmos

wasdonewithoutconsultation,andhas

beendisputedbythecommunity(Zegarra

et al,2006).

Olmos Project Plan,

first phase

(Source: Odebrecht, 2006)

StartTransAndesTunnel

©W

WF

/W

.Nag

el

A look at 4 proposed IBTs

Pipedreams? Page ��

Ofinterestwillbewhoarethebuyersof

thenewlandssuitableforirrigationwhen

theprojectisreadytoproceed?People

from outside the region, who have sufficient

resourcestobuythelandandthewater?

Whatwilltheyproduce?Highquality

productsforexporttothecapitalLima

orabroad?Ifso,thiswillmeannoextra

accesstogoodsforthispoorregionitself.

It will also likely to create social conflicts

betweenlocalsandthenewinhabitants.

Thisissuealsorelatestothefutureofthe

carobtreeforestinthisterritory.Thisforest

typeisvaluableforthelocalpeopleand

theirwayofliving.Theyuseitasfoodfor

theirlivestock,forapiculture,toproduce

carobandultimatelytheyusethewoodto

makecharcoal(Zegarraet al,2006).

Anadditionalsocialimpactofthisproposal

willbetheforcedre-locationofthevillage

ofPedregal,withits200inhabitants,in

theIBTdonorbasinofHuancabamba.

Whilecompensationhasbeengivenfor

thisrelocation,noinformationisavailable

onhowthisnewsituationhasaffectedthe

waysoflifeofthesepeople.

Analysis

Thekeyquestionis“isthisprojectneeded

atall?”However,thisnowseemspointless

as the first nine metres of the dam have

beenbuilt,andagiantdrillwasscheduled

toarriveinDecember2006tocomplete

thetunnel.

While this first phase of the project is

underway,thesecondandthirdphases

havenotyetbeenputouttotender,

meaningthattheremaystillbetime

torecommendadjustmentsandavoid

environmentalandsocialimpacts.The

developmentofanindependent,integrated

andcomprehensiveEnvironmentalImpact

Assessment(EIA)studyshouldbeapriority.

To solve the social conflict relating to

communallandsandtheabsenceofland

titles,aSocialImpactAssessmentshould

alsobedone.

Ifthereistobeconversionofsomelands

to irrigated fields, as per the proposal,

thenthisshouldavoidareaswithvaluable

dryforest.Inthiswaythelocalcommunity

memberswillretaintheirforestsandsoat

leastapartoftheircommunalgroundswill

besafe(Zegarraet al,2006).

Giventheclimateandlandscape,a

preferablealternativetototalrelianceon

irrigatedcroppingmaybetoblendthis

withcattlebreeding.Bypromotingirrigated

agriculturethroughtheIBTitispotentially

makingtheagriculturalsectorvery

vulnerable.Irrigationisalsolikelyto

seetreesremoved,highratesof

evaporativewaterloss,andpossibly

salinisationproblems.

©W

WF

/W

.Nag

el

Ricepaddiesneartheriver

Huancabamba

Pipedreams? Page �5

Summary

Where Peru: Olmos Transfer Project

When July 2004 contract was signed

What Receiving basin Olmos

Donating basin Huancabamba

Distance 19.3 km long tunnel

Structures 2 tunnels , 1 dam of 43 m (phase 1), 2 hydropower plants and 1 dam (phase 2), irrigation system (phase 3

Cost US$ 185 million (phase 1)

Why Purpose • Irrigation • Energy supply

Why not Environmental cost • Logging of dry forest in favour of new irrigation grounds • Deterioration of ecosystems in the donating basin

Social cost • Loss of communal grounds and no ratification of communal land rights of the farmers • Relocation of 200 people in donating basin

Alternatives • Introducing water saving methods • Change from luxury, export products to “non-thirsty” crops • Save the carob dry forest by avoiding conversion of these lands to irrigation • Blending irrigated cropping with stock breeding

©W

WF-

Per

u

Pipedreams? Page ��

Case study � South-North Water Transfer, People’s Republic of China

Why an IBT

Theongoingwatershortageinnorth

China–especiallyintheagriculturaland

industrialareasofthedenselypopulated

northChinaplain–isbyanymeasure,

verysevere.Alwaysfairlyarid,theregion’s

waterresourceshavebeenheavilydrained

byintensiveagriculture,rapidpopulation

growth,andanexpandingindustrialsector.

Asincomesrise,China’sperperson

waterdemandforresidentialuseis

alsoincreasing.

About40%ofChina’scultivatedareaand

31%ofitsgrossindustrialoutputdepends

ononly10%ofChina’swaterresources.

Theresultisfallingwatertables,pollution

anddryrivers.

Ineveryyearofthe1990s,theYellowRiver,

China’ssecondlargestriver,experienced

periodswhentherewasnorun-offtothe

sea.Theworstcasehappenedin1997,

whentherewasnorunofftotheseafor

226days.

WhileChina’sgovernmentcannotbe

criticisedforprovidingitscitizenswithwater

in deficit areas, critics believe alternatives

totheSouth-NorthTransferProject,with

bettersocio-economicoutcomesand

lowerenvironmentalimpacts,werenot

adequatelyconsideredbeforetheproject

wasapproved(Sharma,2005).

ThestudiesontheSouth-to-NorthWater

Transfersstartedinthe1950sandresulted

inthreewatertransferprojects;theWestern

RouteProject(WRP),theMiddleRoute

Project(MRP)andtheEasternRoute

Project(ERP)beingproposed.

TheprojectwilltakewaterfromtheYangtze

basinandtransferitmorethan1,000

kilometrestotheYellow,HuaiheandHaihe

riverbasinsinthenorth(GovernmentChina,

www.nsbd.gov.cn).

China’sStateEnvironmentalProtection

Administration(SEPA)hascompleted

EIAsoftheEasternandCentralRoutes

oftheSNWTProject,andhasapproved

theprojectsforconstruction.TheWestern

Routeiscurrentlybeingassessed.

Expected environmental and social impacts

Eastern Route Project

Themainchallengeassociatedwiththe

EasternRouteProjectisenvironmentalclean

up,ratherthanimpact.Agriculturalrun-

off,sewage,factorywaste,rivertransport

pollution,andintensiveaquaculturealready

heavilypollutetheexistingwaterways

alongtheroute.Pulpandpaperfactories

arethebiggestpointsourcepolluters,but

agriculturalrun-offisalsoquitesevere.

TheEasternRouteProjectwillmainly

refurbish,expandandupgradethealready

existinginfrastructure,includingtheold

GrandCanal(USEmbassy,2003).Forthese

reasonstheEasternRouteProjectmayhave

some substantial environmental benefits.

Central Route Project

ThemainsocialproblemwiththeCentral

RouteProjectwillbethedisplacementof

approximately250,000people.

The reduction in water flow along the

middleandlowerreachesoftheHanRiver,

betweentheRouteintakeandWuhan

(where the Han River flows into the Yangtze)

willhaveamajorimpactontheecosystems

ofthearea.

Accordingtoexpertstheshort-termstrategy

fordealingwiththedrainontheHanRiver

istoseasonallyadjustthevolumeofwater

diverted.Thelong-termsolutionbeing

discussedistoextendthediversiontothe

ThreeGorgesReservoirfarthersouth(US

Embassy,2003).

A look at 4 proposed IBTs

Pipedreams? Page ��

Western Route Project

FortheWesternRouteProject,workis

scheduledtobeginin2010to2015.Here,

theupperstretchesoftheYangtzeandthe

YellowRiverwillbelinkedthroughmore

than300kmoftunnelsbuiltinremoteand

mountainousterrainwithanaltitudeof

4,000metres.

ThreedamsareneededintheYalongRiver

(175m),TongtianRiver(302m)andthe

DaduRiver(296m).Therewillbegeological

difficulties with regional earthquake levels of

about6-7even8-9locally.

Becausetheelevationofthebedofthe

YellowRiverishigherthanthatofthe

correspondingsectionoftheYangtze(by

80-450meters),pumpingstationswillbe

necessarytomovethewaterintotheYellow

River.Thisinfrastructuralworkisestimated

tocostUS$37.5billionforasupplyof

about15km3/yr.Thetotalwaterneededfor

thewholeofnorthChinais52km3/yr.

WhiletheEasternandCentralRoutes

areaimeddirectlyatsupportingChina’s

burgeoningandprosperingeasterncities,

theWesternRoutewoulddirectvery

expensiveresourcestofurthersubsidizing

withcheapwaterthegrainfarmersof

China’smiddleandnorthwest.Farmers

inthatregionalreadydrawlargevolumes

oflow-costwaterfromtheYellowRiverin

Gansu,Ningxia,InnerMongolia,Shanxiand

Shaanxi,inproducinglow-valuecrops.

Pressuretopromoteeconomicdevelop-

mentinChina’spoorerwesternprovinces

appearstobecompellingcentralplanners

topromisetheconstructionoftheWestern

RouteProject(USEmbassy,2003).

Analysis

Chinaneedsachangeofwater

managementphilosophyandthisisalready

happeningthroughimprovedwaterlaws

andpoliciesadoptedinrecentyears.

TheSNWTschemeisexpensiveandwith

fewer benefits compared to the alternatives.

AtanestimatedcostofoverUS$62.5billion

itisnotonlycostlytotaxpayers,butalso

totheenvironment,especiallyforthe

WesternRoute.

Therearealternativesathandforsaving

waterwithoutdamagingtheenvironment,

suchas:

• Enhancing distribution efficiency by

reducingtransmissionlosses;

• Improving water use efficiency,

particularlyinagriculture,andreducing

demandwithhigherwaterprices;

• Increasingwaterreuse,includingbetter

pollutionpreventionandcontroland

large-scaleinvestmentinwatertreatment

facilities;and

• Recharginggroundwaterreservesand

helpinconservingwaterthatcanbelater

usedindroughtconditions.

Pipedreams? Page ��

Summaries

Where China: Eastern route

When Started in December, 2002

What Receiving basin Yellow River Basin, Hai River Basin

Donating basin Lower reaches of Yangtze

Distance 1156 km, discharge of 14.8 km3/yr

Structures Canal, tunnel, pumping stations

Cost US$ 8.2 billion

Why Purpose • Irrigation • Municipal water supply

Why not Environmental cost • Sediment loss will affect riparian and coastal wetland maintenance • Less dilution of pollutants • Invasive biota and chemicals in the passing lakes (Hongze, Luoma, Nansi, Dongping) • Change of river patterns and in natural flow cycles of the rivers, disturbing the wildlife and ecosystems

Social cost • About 10.000 people displaced

Alternatives • Better distribution efficiency • Water use efficiency and higher water pricing • Increasing water reuse (meaning better pollution prevention and control and large-scale investment in water treatment facilities) • Recharging groundwater reserves and help in conserving water that can be later used in drought conditions

Where China: Middle route

When • Started in 2003 and in 2007 they expect to have one part completed (according to China Daily 12/10/2005) • Completion is due by 2012 (according to US Embassy, 2003)

What Receiving basin Yellow River Basin, Hai River Basin

Donating basin Middle reaches of Yangtze (from Danjiangkou Reservoir on the Han River, the longest tributary of the Yangtze)

Distance 1273 km

Structures Canal, aqueduct, tunnel

Cost US$14.7 billion

Why Purpose • Municipal and industrial water supply • irrigation

Why not Environmental cost Reducing water flow of donating basins

Social cost Relocation of 320.000 inhabitants due to increase in size of Danjiangkou Reservoir and along the route itself

Alternatives • Better distribution efficiency • Water use efficiency and higher water pricing • Increasing water reuse (meaning better pollution prevention and control and large-scale investment in water treatment facilities) • Recharging groundwater reserves and help in conserving water that can be later used in drought conditions

Pipedreams? Page �9

Where China: Western route

When Still doing preliminary studies because of complex area

What Receiving basin Yellow River Basin

Donating basin Tongtianhe - the Upper reaches of Yangtze; Yalongjiang and Daduhe rivers -the tributaries of the Yangtze

Distance 317 km of tunnels, 20 km3/yr may be the discharge

Structures Dams, tunnels, pumping stations

Cost 37 billion US$ (only preliminary costs)

Why Purpose • Municipal and industrial water supply • irrigation

Why not Environmental cost • Vulnerable and fragile area • Part of Tibetan mountainous ecoregion • Water availability is not inexhaustible, especially in light of climate change with glaciers receding • Real danger of earthquakes and landslides during construction

Social cost Relocation of people, including minorities

Alternatives • Better distribution efficiency • Water use efficiency and higher water pricing • Increasing water reuse (meaning better pollution prevention and control and large-scale investment in water treatment facilities) • Recharging groundwater reserves and help in conserving water that can be later used in drought conditions

Pipedreams? Page 30

Conclusions - summary of lessons learned

Table 2: Process weaknesses or expected negative Case study impacts of IBT

4 Acheloos 5 São Francisco 6 Olmos 7 South-North Diversion, Basin Interlinking Transfer Project, Transfer, Greece Project, Brazil Peru PR of China

Demand management in recipient basin not serious part of pre-planning for IBT, potentially supporting on-going water wastage 3 3 3 3IBT expected to become driver for unsustainable water use in recipient basin– irrigation and urban 3 3 3 3Will create strong dependence on IBT in recipient community 3 3 3 3Donor basin likely to experience serious environmental impacts through reduced flows especially 3 3 3IBT expected to create or escalate threats to critically endangered, threatened species, Ramsar sites, Natura 2000 sites etc 3 3

Scheme likely to see economic benefits in the recipient basin at the cost of communities in the donor basin 3 3 3 3

Inadequate consultations with those likely to be affected either directly or indirectly 3 3 3 3IBT may become catalyst for social conflict between donor and recipient basins or with government 3 3 3 3IBT is not expected to help the situation of the poor affected or displaced by it 3 3 3

Post IBT mitigation costs expected to be very high, either environmentally or socially 3 3 3 3Governance arrangements for IBT appear weak 3 3

Aswasthecasewiththelongestablished

IBTs,therearemanycommonthemes

runningthroughthefourcasestudiesof

prospectivetransferschemesreviewedhere

andsummarisedintable2.

Itseemsthatdespitethewell-docu-

mentedproblemsassociatedwiththe

earliestIBTs,thelessonshavenotyet

beenlearnedandthatdecisionmakers

continuetorepeatthesameerrorswhen

contemplatingandthenmovingforward

toinitiatenewschemes.

Pipedreams? Page 31

5 Alternatives to interbasin water transfers

The preceding sections have focussed on established or proposed interbasin

water transfers and strongly illustrate the case that in most instances these water

infrastructure proposals come with a range of generally unacceptable or unnecessary

social, economic and environmental costs.

Toreiterate,establishedIBTsaretypically

characterisedbythefollowingnegative

attributes:

• Demandmanagementintherecipient

basinwasnotaseriouspartofpre-

planningforIBT,leadingtoon-going

waterwastagethere;

• TheIBTbecameadriverfor

unsustainableirrigationorurbanwater

useintherecipientbasin;

• Theschemecreatedstrongdependence

ontheIBTintherecipientcommunity,

thuspromotingunsustainableactivities,

andremovingtheneedtoimprovewater

use efficiencies or find alternative water

sources/supplies;

• TheIBTisnowseenasinadequateand

otherwatersupplementationapproaches

havebeenrequiredsuchgroundwater

extraction,desalinisation,recyclingetc;

• Thedonorbasinexperiencesserious

environmentalimpactsthroughreduced

flows especially;

• TheIBTcreatedorescalatedthreatsto

criticallyendangeredspecies,Ramsar-

listedwetlandsandprotectedareas;

• Thetransferschemesaweconomic

benefits in recipient basin at the cost of

communitiesinthedonorbasin;

• TheIBTservedasacatalystforsocial

conflict between the donor and recipient

basinsorwithgovernment;

• TheIBThasnothelpedthesituationof

thepooraffectedordisplacedbyit;

• PostIBTmitigationcostshaveproven

veryhigh,eitherenvironmentallyor

socially;and,

• GovernancearrangementsforsomeIBT’s

areweak,resultinginbudgetblow-outs

orcorruption(insomecases).

Insection3itwasnotedthatthelessons

wecanlearnfromexistingIBTsareas

follows:

1Beforeprogressingtocommissionan

IBT,thereshouldbeacomprehensive

assessmentofthealternativesavailable

forprovidingthewaterneededinthe

proposedrecipientbasin.Canthis

waterbeprovidedthroughdemand

management,waterrecycling,water

harvestingetc,beforeconsideringa

majorinfrastructureinvestmentwith

itspossibleenvironmentalandsocial

impacts?

� Undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the

likelyimpactsoftheIBTonboththe

donorandrecipientbasins,considering

thefullrangeofenvironmental,socialand

economicimplications.

3Ensurerisksassociatedwiththe

proposedIBT;environmental,social

andeconomicareclearlyunderstood,

andiftheprojectproceeds,governance

arrangementsareadequatetomanage

andminimisetheserisks.

�Undertakeconsultationswiththelikely

directlyandindirectlyaffectedpeople,

beforeadecisionistakenregarding

thepossibleIBT(andcertainlybeforeit

becomesfaitaccompli)ensuring

theyunderstandandhavetheopportunity

to voice views on likely cost, benefits

andrisks.

Pipedreams? Page 3�

Addressing the key weaknesses in IBT planning

WhatstandsoutamongtheIBTcase

studiesdocumentedinthisreport,and

elsewhere,arethefollowing:

1Apartfromhydropowergeneration,a

commondriverofIBTsisadesireto

promoteagriculturalproductioninwater

poorareas,and,inparticularirrigated

agriculture.Thiscanseeunsustainable

croppingpracticespromotedbytheIBT

whenperhapsthiswasunwise;

�Thereistypicallyafailuretoexamine

alternativestotheIBTthatmaymean

delaying,deferringoravoidingthecosts

(ineverysense)ofanIBT;and

3Therearearangeofgovernancefailures

rangingfrompoortonon-existent

consultationwithaffectedpeople,to

failing to give sufficient consideration or

weighttotheenvironmental,socialand

culturalimpactsoftheIBT,inboththe

donorandrecipientbasins.

Inthefollowingsectioneachoftheseis

examinedmoreclosely.

5.1 IBTs promoting agricultural production in water poor areas

Globallyagricultureconsumesaround

70%ofthewaterdivertedforhuman

use,andupto80%ofthiswaterdoes

notreachtheplantsitwasintendedto

sustain.Amassivegrowthindemandfor

agriculturalexpansion,drivenbygrowing

wealthinmanycountries,povertyreduction

programsandincreasinglythegrowthof

cropsforbiofuels,threatenstoconsume

evenmorewater.TheInternationalWater

Management&StockholmInternational

WaterInstitutesforecastthateradicating

malnutritionby2025,withcurrent

productivity,requiresadditionaldiversions

“closetoallthewaterwithdrawalsat

present”(IWMI&SIWI,2004).Askeyrivers,

rangingfromtheRioGrande/Bravo,tothe

NileandtheIndus,increasinglyfailtoreach

thesea,thispoorwatermanagementisa

sourceoftensionbetweencountries.

WithmanyIBTsbeingdrivenbyagricultural

waterdemands,itisimportanttoassess

theeconomicviabilityofagricultural

practicesintheproposedrecipientbasin.

Asseveralofthecasestudiesdocumented

herereveal,thecreationofanIBTcan

(orwill)stimulateexpansionofagricultural

activities,especiallyirrigation,inareas

thatmaynotbesuitedtothisclimatically

orotherwise.Itcanalsofosterthe

establishmentofsuchagriculturalactivities

witharelianceonunder-priced(meaning

subsidised)IBT-sourcedwater;such

areliancenotbeingsustainableinthe

long-term.

AsseeninthesituationoftheUpper

AcheloosDiversionprojectinGreece

(seecasestudy4insection4),theIBT

is justified (in large part) on the premise

thatitwillsustaintheagriculturalindustry,

andinparticularthecottonproductionin

theThessalyplains.Itishoweverhighly

questionablewhethercottonproduction

herewouldbeeconomicallyviable

withoutthelargesubsidiesitreceives.

Pipedreams? Page 33

WithintheEU,onlySpainandGreece

havesizeablecottonproductionandin

2001togethertheyaccountedfor2.5%

ofcottonproductionand6%ofworld

exportsincotton.Atthesametimethey

received16%ofworldcottonsubsidies.

In2002/03itisestimatedthatunderthe

EU’scommonagriculturalpolicy(CAP),

subsidiesexceededUS$900million(Gillson

et al,2004).

AnotherwaytoconsiderthemeritofIBTs

forpromotingagricultureisthroughthe

conceptof‘virtualwater’.Asdeveloped

byProfessorTonyAllan,thistermisused

todescribetheamountofwaterused

intheproductionprocessofgoodsand

services(Hoekstra,2003).Forexample,the

productionof1kgofbeefrequires16,000

litresofwater.Asgoodsandservices

aretradedacrosstheglobe,orbetween

regionswithincountries,virtualwateris

alsotransferred.AccordingtoHoekstra,

thisvirtualwatertradecanbeanimportant

instrumentinachievingwatersecurityand

efficient use of water, and some authors

arguethatvirtualwatertradebetweenor

withinnationscanbeafeasiblealternative

totheactualtransportofwaterthrough

interbasintransferschemes.

A review of food flows, and subsequently

virtualwatertrade,inChina(Maet al.,

2006)foundthatthereisafoodsurplus

in north China, and a food deficit in South

China,whichisbalancedonanational

scalethroughimportofagricultural

productsfromthenorthtothesouth.In

1999,southChinaimported(amongstother

commodities)17milliontonsofgrain,23

milliontonsofvegetablesand2.4million

tonsofdairyproductsfromnorthChina.

Togetherwithimportsofeggs,meatand

fruitthisrepresentedavirtualwaterimport

ofnearly52km3/yr.Incomparison,the

maximumamountofwatertransferred

underthethreeroutesoftheSouth-North

transfer(seecasestudy7insection4)is

intheorderof38-43km3/yr. These figures

raisethequestionwhetherthephysical

transferofwaterfromsouthtonorthover

suchlongdistances,andatsuchexpense

makeseconomicsense,whenevenlarger

amountsofvirtualwateraretransported

backfromnorthtosouth.Otherexamples

of‘virtualwater’asaconsiderationinIBT

developmentaregiveninBox2.

Therearenoeasyanswerstothese

questions,butitdoesindicatetheneed

formoreresearchintowhethersomeof

thewatershortagesinnorthChinacan

beaddressedbyincreasingagricultural

productiononexistingcroplandsinthe

water-richsouth,ratherthanthroughIBT.

Box2: Examples of where ‘virtual water’ is a factor in IBT-related

decisionmaking

SouthernAfrica:

Thetradeinvirtualwatercanpotentiallyofferanalternativetoexpensivewatertransfer

schemesinSouthernAfrica.EarleandTurton(2003)posethatthereareanumberof

statesintheSouthernAfricaDevelopmentCommunity,suchasAngola,DRofCongo,

ZambiaandMozambique,thatarewellsuitedforgrainproductionandhavethe

potentialtobecomesurplusproducers.Thesesurplusescouldthenbeexportedtothe

richer,waterstressednationswithintheregion,suchasSouthAfrica,thusreducing

theneedforphysicaltransfersofwaterthere.Toachievethiswouldrequiresubstantial

investmentsinagricultureandgraintransfersystems,butthiscouldwellbebothmore

economically,aswellasenvironmentallysustainable,particularlyifproductivityofexisting

croplandscanbeenhanced.

Continuedoverleaf

Pipedreams? Page 3�

Box2continued

MoroccoandEurope:

WWFundertookanassessmentonvirtualwatertransfersfromwaterscarceMoroccoin

July2006.

Morocco’shorticulturesectorhasestablishedlinkstoEuropeanmarketsbecause

ofitsfavourablelocation,growingclimateandfrancophonehistory.Tomatofarmsin

SoussMassaboastamodernisedindustrywithahighdegreeoftechnicalexpertise

andtools.Technologytransferoccursinthissectorwithworkersandbusinesspeople

travellingbetweenSpainandMorocco,returningandapplyingthelatestadvancesin

cropproductiontechniques.IfEUquotasareeventuallylifted,thenMoroccowilltake

advantageofmuchlowerlabourcoststoconcentrateonmorehigh-valueproducts.

EconomicdevelopmentinMoroccohasbeenstimulatedinpartbytheriseofexport

intensiveirrigatedagricultureandisseenasavitalemploymentsectorforthecountry’s

future.Currentlyagriculturerepresents80%ofruralemploymentandmorethan40%of

nationalemployment.Intensiveexport-ledagriculturehasincreasedpressuresonthe

environmentandthenaturalresourcebase,butmostprofoundlyonfreshwater.Ifcurrent

waterusepatternsweretoremainconstant,wateravailabilitypercapitawouldbehalved

by2020.Traderestrictions,taxexemptions,pricesupportandwatersubsidiesare

designedtoprotectthecereal-dominatedagriculturalsector,whichuseshugeamounts

of scarce water resources inefficiently.

Virtualwaterexpertspointoutthatthisproblemcouldbeavertedbyrelyingoncereal

cropsfrominternationalmarkets,producedinareaswithfavourablegrowingconditions

for wheat. However, a national desire for food self sufficiency often over-rides any rational

discussionastotheoptimalallocationofwater.

Irrigatedagriculturecurrentlyuses83%ofalldivertedwaterinMorocco,whererecent

droughtshaveaggravatedwatershortages.Thishighlightstheneedfornewapproaches

innationalandlocalwatermanagement.Thiswouldrequireamorebalanceddistribution

ofwateruse,includingadequatepricingmeasures,toensurelongtermsustainability

(Orr,2006).

ExaminingthealternativestoIBTsshould

beconsideredbeforeembarkingon

engineering-basedsolutionstoregional

watershortages.Suchalternativesmay

revealthatthedevelopmentofanIBTcan

bedelayed,deferredforseveralyears,

orperhapsavoidedaltogether.Global

experiencesshowthatalltoooftenthe

decisionistakentoproceedwithan

IBTbeforethesealternativesarefully

considered.Whilethesealternativesmay

takelongertoanalyse,andevenimplement,

iftheyavoidtheenvironmental,socialand

economiccostsofthetypicalIBTthenthey

areclearlyworththeinvestment.

Inmovingtoexaminethealternativesto

anIBT,WWFrecommendsthefollowing

systematicandstep-wiseapproach.As

consideredfurtherinsection5.3,ideally

theseoptionsareconsideredatawhole-

of-river-basinlevel,throughanintegrated

planningprocess.Thealternativesshould

beconsideredinthefollowingorder:

1Reducingwaterdemands;

�Recyclingwastewater;andonlythen,

3Supplementingwatersupplieslocally,and

onlythen,

�ConsideringanIBT,asalastoption.

5.� IBTs that fail to examine alternatives

Pipedreams? Page 35

Below,eachoftheseoptionsareexamined

morecloselyandinmanycasesillustrated

withreallifeexamplesortoolsthatcanbe

usedtoseethemapplied.

5.�.1 Reducing water demands

Demandmanagementsimplymeans

manipulatingoradjustingwaterdemands

sotheydon’texceedsupplies.Demand

management is fundamentally about finding

water use efficiencies wherever they are

availableacrossthemanywaysthatsociety

useswater.Demandmanagementis,to

use financial terms, ‘living within ones

means’,or‘notoverspendingthebudget’.

Such water efficiencies exist in almost every

facetofwateruseandthetaskistoidentify

them, raise awareness of them, and find

ways,meansandincentivestoseethese

watersavingsachieved.

Domesticandurbanwaterusers

Globally,householdsuseonlyabout10%of

waterdiverted(Turton&Henwood,2002),

andsomeofthewatersavingpractices

availableinthehomeare:

• Reducingwaterapplicationonthegarden

(forexample,throughplantingspecies

thatrequirelesswater,mulchingaround

plants,using‘greywater’,installingmore

efficient watering systems etc);

• Closingtapswhilebrushingteeth;

• Installing low-flush-toilets;

• Repairingleakingtaps;

• Washingthecar,motorbikeorbikewitha

bucketinsteadofagardenhose;

• Washingdishesinatubinsteadofunder

runningwater;and

• Installing low-flow shower heads.

Anexampleofwherethesetypesof

measureshavebeenpromotedsuccessfully

isinsouth-eastQueenslandontheeastern

seaboardofAustralia–seeBox3.

Box3: Household water efficiency

measurespromotedinaregionof

Australia

SouthEastQueensland(Australia):

Waterdemandmanagementisinpart

aboutincreasingpublicawarenessof

waterissuesandencouragingmore

efficient use of water, without diminishing

qualityoflife.Societyneedstotreatwater

asavaluableresource.

Thereneedstobeafocusoneducating

thecommunitysothattheyareableto

gainanunderstandingoftheeconomic

and ecological benefits of reducing water

consumption.

Anexampleofsuchmanagementisin

south-eastQueenslandwheretherehas

beenareductionofwaterdemandbyup

to18%insomelocalgovernmentareas

(AWA,2005).

Examplesofsomeoftheinitiativesused

include:

• User-payspricinganduniversalwater

metering;

• Encouragementoftheinstallationof

water efficient devices using rebates/

discounts, for example, dual flush

toilets and low flow shower heads;

• Routinerestrictionsongardenwatering;

• Incentives for plumbing efficiency

‘check-ups’;

• Educationalcampaigns;and

• Loweringwaterpressureindistricts

wherethisisfeasible.

Education programs - a key tool indemandmanagement

Tocreateabetterunderstandingofwater

issuesandhelpresolvewaterresource

problems,educationalprogramsarehighly

recommended.Community,industry

andschooleducationprogramsraise

awarenessabouttheneedtoconserve

waterandtobringaboutlongterm

changesinwaterconsumptionbehaviour.

Thisisonlypossibleifthetargeted

communityisabletoobtainthenecessary

Pipedreams? Page 3�

knowledgeandgainunderstandingofwater

managementthatcanthenbeadaptedto

theirownneedsandlocalcircumstances

(AWA,2005).

Mostsuccessfulareeducationprograms

thatare‘selling’practicalsolutions.Water

educationprogramsforprimaryand

secondaryschoolsareencouragedsoasto

promoteawarenessinthenextgeneration

ofdecisionmakers.

Importantaspectsofsuchprogramsare

thattheyprovidethepersonwithsome

reallifeexamplestopointhim/herinthe

rightdirectionincludingsimplewatersaving

ideaswhichdonotchangetheirwayof

livingandthataregeographicallyrelevantat

local,regionalandnationallevels.

Ingeneral,watercostsarenotwell

reflected in the price of products due to the

subsidiesinthewatersector,particularly

foragriculturalusers.Thegeneralpublic

is,althoughoftenawareofenergy

requirements,muchlessawareofthewater

requirementsinproducingtheirgoodsand

services(Chapagain&Hoekstra,2004).

Thispresentsanopportunitytochange

wateruse-relatedpurchasingbehaviour

througheducation.

Agriculturalwaterusers

Currently,16%ofglobalcroplandisirrigated,

producing40%ofallfood.Thismakes

irrigatedagricultureabout3.6timesmore

productiveperunit-areathannon-irrigated

agriculture(Orr,2006).

TheInternationalWaterManagement

Institutehasestimatedthattheworld’s

irrigatedareawouldneedtoincreaseby

29percentfrom1995onwardstomeet

foodandothernutritionalrequirementsby

2025(Moldenet al2001).Suchanincrease

wouldneedtobesupportedbyanumber

ofmeasures.Theseincludetheconstruction

ofadditionalstorageanddiversionfacilities

todevelopanadditional17percentofthe

world’sprimarywatersupplies,whileyields

fromirrigatedcropswouldhavetoincrease

from3.3to4.7tonnesperhectare.

A more appealing first option, however, must

betoimplementmeasuresforconserving

and making more efficient use of the water

alreadyallocatedtoagriculture.Thisis

especiallysogiventhatcurrentoverallwater-

use efficiency is low: only some 20-50 per

centofdivertedwatersactuallyreachthe

cropsforwhichtheyareintended.

Themanyopportunitiesthatexistfor

improving water efficiency, in both irrigated

andrain-fedagriculture,meanthatmore

foodcouldbegrownwithoutincreasing

existinglevelsofwateruse.

Therearetwobasicmeansbywhichwater-

use efficiency can be improved:

1increasingtheshareofthewateractually

takenupbyplants,and

�producingmorecropperunitofwater

(WWF,2003a).

Water-savingpracticesinagriculture(WWF,

2003a):

• Broadbedcultivationisausefulmethod,

particularlyinirrigatedwheat;

• Alternatefurrowcultivationofbeansand

maizeisanalternativetosavewater(upto

50%inPakistan);

• Cultivationofaerobicricevarieties;

• Dripandsprinklerirrigationforsugarcane,

cottonandwheat;

• Useoftheno-tillageapproach;

• Growingdifferentcropsthatrequireless

water;and

• Changetoorganicallygrowncrops.

To further improve water use efficiency

withintheproductionofcropstheaccurate

measurementofwateruseonacropand

farm scale is the first step.

5.�.� Recycling waste waters

Tosomewatermanagementpractitioners,

recyclingwasteorusedwaterfallswithin

therealmofdemandmanagement.Hereit

isconsideredseparatelytodrawattention

tothepotentialthatitoffersaspartof

thealternativestotheconstructionof

anIBTscheme.

Pipedreams? Page 3�

Thereuseofwatershasbeenanaccepted

globalpracticeforcenturies.Settlements

downstreamdrewtheirpotablewaterfrom

riversandgroundwaterthathadcirculated

upstreamthroughmultiplecyclesof

withdrawal,treatmentanddischarge.

Treatmentandthenreuseofwaterfrom

irrigationandstormwaterdrainage,sewage

and other effluents, industry and utilities can

greatlysupplementlocalwatersupplies.

Theannualreclaimedwatervolumes

totalabout2.2billionm3,basedon2000

and 2001 figures from the World Bank.

(UNESCO/WWAP,2006)

Onaglobalscale,non-potablewater

reuseiscurrentlythedominantmeans

ofsupplementingsuppliesforirrigation,

industrial cooling, river flows and other

applications.Duetoincreasesinpotable

waterconsumption,thetotalvolume

oftheserecycledresourcesislikelyto

increaseby3-5%peryearbasedon

currentwaterusepatterns(UNDP,2004).

Yetinsomecultures,reuseofwaterhas

notyetbeenpubliclyaccepted.According

tosurveys,thebestwaterreuseprojects

intermsofeconomicviabilityandpublic

acceptancearethosethatsubstitute

reclaimedwaterinlieuofpotablewaterfor

useinirrigation,environmentalrestoration,

cleaning, toilet flushing and industrial uses.

Thevolumeofwateravailableforreuseis

considerable,withtheadvantagebeingthat

thereisaguaranteedsupply,whichisnot

dependantonweatherpatterns.

Someforms(andmechanisms)ofwater

reuseinclude(AWA,2005andShelef,2001):

• Indirectreuseviariverorwaterstorage;

• Aquiferstorageandrecoveryofreused

waterorstormwater.Rechargeof

groundwatertocreateabarrierto

seawaterintrusion;

• Industrialreuse;

• Dualreticulationsupplyofreusedwater;

• Greywaterreuse(forexample,toilet

flushing in hotels, office buildings and

high-risebuildings,usingdualwater

distributionsystems);

• Augmentationofrecreationalbodiesof

water;

• Irrigation of public parks, sport fields, etc.;

• Streetwashing;

• Carandtrainwashing;

• Water for fire hydrants; and

• Concretemixing.

5.�.3 Supplementing water supplies locally and a look at the Godavari-Krishna link

Rainwaterharvesting

Rainwatermanagement,alsoknownas

harvesting,isreceivingrenewedattention

asanalternativeto,orameansof,

augmentingwatersupplies.

Interceptingandcollectingrainwaterwhere

itfallsisapracticethatextendsback

topre-biblicaltimes.Itwasused4,000

yearsagoinPalestineandGreeceandin

SouthAsiaoverthelast8,000years.In

ancientRome,pavedcourtyardscaptured

rainthatsupplementedthecity’ssupply

fromaqueductsandasearlyas3000

BC,inBaluchistan,farmingcommunities

impoundedrainwaterforirrigation.

RecentlyinIndia,harvestinghasbeen

usedextensivelytodirectlyrecharge

groundwateratratesexceedingnatural

rechargeconditions.Reportsfromother

internationalorganizationsfocusingonthis

areaindicatethatelevenrecentprojects

acrossDelhiresultedingroundwaterlevel

increasesoffrom5to10metresinjusttwo

years.Infact,theapplicationofrainwater

managementinIndiaislikelytobeoneof

themostmodernintheworld.

Thesitewww.rainwaterharvesting.org

provideslinkstocaseswhererainwater

managementhasbeensuccessfully

appliedindifferentnationsinbothurban

andruralsettings.

Anadvantageofrainwaterharvestingis

thatitscostsarerelativelymodestand

thatindividualorcommunityprogramscan

locallydevelopandmanagetherequired

infrastructures(collectiondevices,basins,

Pipedreams? Page 3�

storagetanks,surfaceorbelow-ground

rechargestructuresorwells).

Largerscalerainwaterharvestingschemes,

whichinterceptrunoffusinglow-height

bermsorspreadingdikestoincrease

infiltration, have also been introduced in

upstreamcatchmentswheredeforestation

hasdecreasedwateravailability(UNESCO/

WWAP,2006).Awordofcautionis

warrantedherehowever,asinsome

partsofAustralia(forexample)thelarge

scaleinterceptionofoverlandrun-off

flows to support irrigated ‘thirsty crop’

agricultureinaridandsemi-aridareashas

deniedthiswaterfromotherdownstream

users,notablygraziers.Large,shallow

impoundmentsareusedtostorethiswater,

fromwhichevaporationratesareveryhigh.

Downstreamriversaresuffering,including

significant wetlands areas. Rainwater

harvesting such as this is highly inefficient

andnotinthebestinterestsofthemajority

ofthosedownstreamwithinthebasin.

Restoringtraditionalwatermanagementstructures

Therestorationoftraditionalwater

harvestingtechnologiesisprovingto

be a beneficial means of improving

modernwatersuppliesinsomecountries.

Anexample,arethetraditionalwater

storagesystems,knownastanks,found

inthemid-GodavaribasinofIndia.These

tankshaveahistoryof1500yearswith

someofthesystemsbuiltin1100AD

perfectlyfunctioningeventodayinthe

Warangaldistrict.

Thesesystemsweredesignedandbuilt

tomeetseveralsocial,economicand

ecologicalfunctions.Primarilytheystore

monsoonraintomeettheagricultural,

fisheries, religious, grazing, groundwater

recharge,washinganddrinkingwater

needsofthepeopleaswellforlivestock

watersupplies.Everyvillageinthesouthern

partsofIndiaandSriLankahasmorethan

onetraditionaltank.

UsingGIStechniqueswithintheManeru

sub-basinofIndia(anareaof13,033

sq.km), WWF recently identified 6,234

traditionalwatertanks,withanareaof

58,870ha.Thisrepresentsabout5%of

thegeographicarea.Ofthese,57tanksare

morethan100hainarea.Ifrestoredto5

metresaveragedepth,these6,234tanks

couldholdabout3billionm3ofwater,by

justcapturing15-20%oftherainfall.

Therestorationofthesetankshasthree

major benefits:

1 thesiltandclayremovedfromthetanks

can be spread on fields to improve the

fertilityandwaterholdingcapacityof

farm soils, reducing the need for artificial

fertilisers,improvingcropproductivity

immediately,andrecoveringthecosts;

�mostoftherestorationworkcanbedone

bythecommunity,thusgeneratinglocal

employment;and

3 restorationwillrechargetheextensive

areasofdepletedgroundwateraquifers,

restoringuseofmanyexistingwellsthat

havedriedup.

Inthiswaythewaterneedsofthelocal

communitiescanbemetwithoutresorting

toexpensivewaterinfrastructure.Presently,

theirrigatedareaintheManerusub-basin

isaround400,000ha.Throughrenovating

thetraditionaltanksthisirrigatedareacan

beprovidedwithmoreassuredwaterand

alsosupportanincreaseinareaforirrigated

cropsofanother200,000ha.Anestimate

of the finances required to renovate all the

tanksisintheorderofUS$4billionover

five years. This represents about 50% of

thecostsassociatedwithconstructionof

largedamstoservethesamepurpose.For

example,thelargedamproposedonthe

GodavariRiveratPolavaram–partofthe

IndianGovernment’sproposedinterlinking

ofriversscheme-isexpectedtoirrigate

only290,000haandhasacostofUS$3.5

billion.Thedamwillalsoremovemorethan

300,000peoplefromtheirtraditionalhomes

andsubmergemorethan60,000haof

productivelandandforest.

Pipedreams? Page 39

In order to divert the water, a dam is proposed near

Polavaram on the Godavari river. This dam is embroiled

in one of the country’s bitter controversies. About

300,000 mostly tribal people would be displaced due

to land submergence; the dam would also submerge

large tracks of pristine forest including part of a wildlife

sanctuary that is tiger habitat, along with cultural

symbols important to the region (Gujja, 2006). About

5325 million cubic meters of water would be diverted

to the Krishna river through a 186 km canal running

from the Ramsar wetland of international importance,

the Kolleru Lake. Farmers whose land is already

irrigated will use all this additional, diverted water to

cultivate even more rice, a highly water-consumptive

crop. Such excessive irrigation will lead to salination,

water logging and will ultimately reduce productivity.

Implications of Interlinking of RiversThere are national guidelines and norms established

for implementing irrigation schemes. These

guidelines are related to forest submergence, wildlife

protection, environmental protection, rehabilitation and

resettlement policies, and protection of tribal people

from displacement from their traditional lands. Most

of these guidelines look relatively good on paper but

a poor track record of implementing them in earlier

large water infrastructure projects has raised several

concerns. Millions of people have lost their land and

livelihood due to earlier water infrastructure projects

and are still waiting for proper compensation and land

rehabilitation. The Interlinking of Rivers project is likely

to add further misery to the poorest of the poor and

therefore needs to take into consideration the various

impacts on people and ecosystems. Fortunately, for at

least four years this Interlinking of Rivers project has

been the subject of intense national debate.

Civil society committeeThe scale of the proposed Interlinking of Rivers project

has the potential to alter everything: geography,

economy, forests, wildlife, social fabric, and customs in

India. WWF organized a national dialogue in February

2003 by inviting experts, top government policy

makers, NGOs and other stakeholders in Delhi. This

initial meeting concluded that there is a need for

establishing a national civil society committee to

review the Interlinking of Rivers project. The committee

consisted of fourteen eminent persons serving in

an individual capacity with their respective areas of

expertise. Some of the members are known to be

publicly opposing or supporting the Interlinking of the

Rivers project and this encourages dialogue and debate.

The committee has raised the following questions:

• Is it the most cost effective option?

• Will India’s food security critically depend on it?

• Will it make any difference to floods and droughts?

• Will it increase or decrease the water conflicts

between various state governments?

• Have the calculations to arrive at the deficit and

surplus of water in each river taken all aspects into

consideration including climate change?

• Are there any better alternatives to meet the same

objectives?

The civil society committee is an experiment in Indian

policy debate and helps to engage diverse viewpoints.

Rivers are not just pipelines to divert surplus water to

deficit areas and it is not possible to manage floods

Continuedoverleaf

Desilted water tank, India

©B

iksh

amG

ujja

The Godavari-Krishna link in the world’s largest water transfer scheme, India’s Interlinking of rivers

The Godavari-Krishna link is one of 33 links proposed by the government of India in the world’s

largest water transfer scheme, the Interlinking of Rivers project. The Godavari is the second largest

river basin in India with about 320,000 km2 of catchment area. The Godavari river basin has been

termed the surplus basin for transferring water to the Krishna river basin.

Pipedreams? Page �0

The Godavari-Krishna link continued

and droughts by simply connecting the rivers; in fact

it might aggravate the situation in certain areas and

bring new problems. India has a long tradition of

respecting its rivers and there are also many examples

of such large inter basin transfers in the world that

have not worked elsewhere. The Committee Chairman

has also stated that the government has an obligation

to prove to the nation that the Interlinking of Rivers is

not going to damage ecosystems and will not cause

further misery to people before any work on the

ground begins. (Alagh et al., 2006)

AlternativesRestoring traditional water management structuresIn the mid-Godavari basin there are many traditional

water storage systems known as tanks going back

some 1500 years. Some of the systems built in

1100 AD are perfectly functioning even today in the

Warangal district. These systems are used to store

water for various functions: agriculture, rural fisheries,

cattle needs, recharge of groundwater, cultural needs.

These systems are small but cumulatively meet water

needs of large rural populations. Investing in these

systems to store around 16% of the rainfall could meet

water needs for the people of this semi-arid region

for the production of food and drinking water and the

tanks help in recharging groundwater. Further, as the

tanks are widely distributed in the landscape, they can

be managed by village-based committees, and employ

unskilled labour for maintenance, thus enhancing the

livelihoods of many more poor people compared to

the large scale ‘lift irrigation’ scheme proposed in this

Deccan Plateau region.

Reducing water input to grow rice and other thirsty crops.Rice cultivation increases water demand in India. More

than 70% of the water allocated to agriculture is for

this single crop. WWF is working with local institutions

and farmers to test the method known as the System

of Rice Intensification (SRI). This farm-based method

could produce 20% more rice with 30% less water.

These are just two examples which can avoid

expensive schemes without compromising economic

and ecological goals.

1 Kosi - Mechi2 Kosi - Ghagra3 Gandak - Ganga4 Ghagra - Yamuna5 Sarda - Yamuna6 Yamuna - Rajasthan7 Rajasthan - Sabarmati8 Chunar - Sone Barrage9 Sone Dam - Southern Tributaries of Ganga10 Manas - Sankosh - Tista - Ganga11 Jogighopa - Tista - Farakka (alternative)12 Farakka - Sunderbans13 Ganga (Farakka) - Damodar - Subernarekha14 Subernarakha - Mahanadi15 Mahanadi (Manibhadra) - Godavari (Dowlaiswaram)16 Godavari (Inchampalli) - Krishna (Nagarjunasagar)17 Godavari (Inchampalli) - Krishna (Pulichintala)18 Godavari (Polavaram) - Krishna (Vijayawada)19 Krishna (Almatti) - Pennar20 Krishna (Srisailam) - Pennar21 Krishna (Nagarjunasagar) - Pennar (Somasila)22 Pennar (Somasila) - Palar - Cauvery (Grand Anicut)23 Cauvery (Kattalai) - Vaigai - Gundar24 Ken - Betwa25 Parbati - Kalisindh - Chambal26 Par - Tapi - Narmada27 Damanganga - Pinjal28 Bedti - Varda29 Netravati - Hemavati30 Pamba - Achankovil - Vaippar

Proposed inter basin water transfer links

Pipedreams? Page �1

Nepal case on IBT alternatives

(BothENDS, 2006)

InNepal,localCivilSocietyOrganizations

(CSOs)aredevelopingalternatives

forthehighcostMelamchiWater

Supply Project financed by the Asian

DevelopmentBankandJapan.

Thisprojectinvolvesdivertingthe

MelamchiRiverthrougha26kmlong

tunneltotheKathmanduValleyinorder

tosupplydrinkingwateratmarketprices

totheurbanpopulation,leavingfarmers

andruralecosystemsingreatdistress.

TheCSOsaredevelopingcheaper

pro-pooralternativestotheIBTbased

onageoldtraditionalwatersystems.

Thesearereadilyavailablesystemsand

involvetheuseofgroundwater,surface

waterandrainwaterharvesting,andthe

rehabilitationofhundredsofculturally

andreligiouslyvaluedtraditionalponds.

Through professional cost-benefit

analysistheyhopetoprovethefeasibility

of this project and find financial support.

Desalinisation

Useofdesalinisationisincreasing,

especiallyinwater-scarcecoastalareas,

includingtheUSA,Mediterraneanbasin

andtheMiddleEast,India,China,Australia

andsmallislandstates.Thereisevena

desalinisationproposalforLondon.

Criticisedas‘bottledenergy’,desalination

couldprovideareliablesourceofpotable

waterwithoutbeingreliantonrainfall.

However,desalinisationisan‘energy

hungry’processandcriticspointtothisas

anegativeofthisoptionwhenitrelieson

energyderivedfromfossilfuels.

Environmentalproblemsassociatedwith

desalinisationincludedisposalofthewaste

brinesolutionandbiocidesusedtowash

theplantmembranes.

Inspiteofmajoradvancesinenergy

efficiency, these major problems remain an

obstacletothewideruseofdesalinisation

technologies(AWA,2005).

WWFnotesthatdesalinationcouldbe

onealternativetowaterscarcityproblems,

butmoreworkisnecessarytoadequately

managetheenvironmentalimpactsof

theenergyconsumption,brineand

biocide effluents.

5.�.� Consider IBTs as a last option

AnyproposalforanIBTshouldbeplaced

underthedecisionmakingmicroscope

beforeadecisionistakentoproceed.

Toooftentheveryviablealternativesto

an IBT are not given sufficient attention

insuchdecisions.Theevidenceisclear

thattheseschemescanoffersolutions

towatershortageproblemsthatareless

costly,lessdamagingtotheenvironment

andlessdisruptiveanddivisiveinsociety.

Frequentenvironmentalomissionsinthe

pre-planningandexecutionofIBTsarethe

provision of adequate environmental flows

withinthedonorbasin,andthemanagement

ofinvasivespeciestransferredwiththe

waterbetweenbasins.Decisionmakers

oweittotheirconstituentstoundertake

comprehensive cost-benefit and risk

assessmentsaspartofreachingadecision

inrelationtoanyproposedIBT,asproposed

bytheWorldCommissioninDams(2000).

Pipedreams? Page ��

5.3 Governance failures in river basin level planning

Itwasnotedintheintroductiontothis

sectionthatoneoftheattributesevident

intheIBTcasestudiesdocumentedinthis

report(andelsewherealso)isthefailure

ofgovernancearrangementstoensure

that comprehensive cost-benefit and risk

assessmentsformpartofIBT-related

decisionmaking.

Weakgovernanceisalsoindicatedbythe

commonlywitnessedpoortonon-existent

consultationwithaffectedpeopleresulting

in insufficient consideration or weight being

affordedtotheenvironmental,socialand

culturalimpactsoftheIBT,inboththedonor

andrecipientbasins.

Yetanothersignalofpoorgovernanceis

thelackofconsiderationatanappropriate

managementscale,meaningfailuretolook

attheimpactsoftheproposedIBTwithin

ariverbasinmanagementframework.

Withoutthis,therisksof‘collateraldamage’

fromtheIBTareverymuchhigher.Through

employingthemanagementmodelof

IntegratedRiverBasinManagement(IRBM)

governmentsandcivilsocietywillbe

muchbetterplacedtomakewellinformed

decisionsinrelationtoIBTs.

AreportpreparedinOctober2004forthe

IRBMTaskForceoftheChinaCouncilon

InternationalCooperationforEnvironment

andDevelopment,proposedawayforward

forChinatomoveinestablishinganIRBM

frameworkforthemanagementofits

extensiveriversystems.Someextracts

fromthatreport(below)helpexplainthe

conceptofIRBMandtherationalebehind

it(reportatwww.harbour.sfu.ca/dlam/

04riverbasin%20rpt.htm).

“Akeyfactorthatundermineseffortsto

deliversustainabilityoutcomesissector-

basedgovernance;theorganizationof

publicadministrationthatsegregates,

ratherthanintegrates,economic,social

andenvironmentalpolicy,lawsand

administration.Withpressureonwater

resourcesintensifyinginallpartsofthe

world,integratedriverbasinmanagement

(IRBM)israpidlybeingintroducedinmany

countriesasamanagementframeworkthat

canhelpdrawtogethereconomic,social

andenvironmentalaspirations.

IRBMisaprocessofcoordinatingthe

managementanddevelopmentofthe

water,land,biologicalandrelatedresources

withinariverbasin,soastomaximizethe

economic and social benefits in an equitable

waywhileatthesametimeconserving

freshwaterecosystemsandspecies.

IRBMisalsoaparticipatorymechanismfor

solving conflicts and allocating water among

competingusers,whilerecognizingthat

naturalecosystemsareinpartthesuppliers

ofthatresourceandthefundamental‘natural

infrastructure’thatdeliversittohuman

users.Naturalecosystemsarealsokey

providersofarangeofecosystemsservices

(flood mitigation, water quality improvement

and fish production for example) which

previouslywereoverlookedinwaterresource

management.

“Manyoftheproblemswithriverandwater

resourcemanagementbeingencountered

byChina…todayarealsofoundinother

countries.Inmanyofthese,IRBMisbeing

appliedastheadministrativeframework

toseeenhancedintegrationofeconomic

development,communitywell-beingand

environmentalsustainabilityintodecision-

making.Table3belowsummarisesboth

thekeyproblemsthatothercountrieshow

encounteredwithmanagingriversandwater

resourcesandhowIRBMofferssolutionsto

theseproblems.”

Pipedreams? Page �3

Table 3: Summary of international experiences in relation to river basin management and how IRBM offers solutions to these problems

The problems

Sector-based approachesHistorically governments and societies have failed to appreciate the intrinsic linkages between economic growth, societal well-being and environmental sustainability, and have established decision-making, legal and administrative systems that serve to isolate, rather than integrate these pillars of sustainable development.

IRBM fosters a change in the way governments do business; moving away from sector- based institutions, policies and laws, to more integrated approaches.

Institutional weaknesses and lack of integration and coordinationSector-based management and decision-making is a product of sector-based institutions, policies and laws. Without addressing these fundamentals, the implementation of IRBM cannot succeed. Poor coordination among ministries is a strong signal of this form of institutional failure. Allied to this are laws and policies that promote sector-based management.

IRBM is as much about social and economic policy reform as it is about moving to manage the environment for long-term sustainability. For this reason the implementation of IRBM must be mandated by the highest level of government and be supported by appropriate legal and administrative coordination tools.

Inappropriate management scaleRiver basins provide a convenient and appropriate management scale; yet historically management has been allowed to operate at small scale without due consideration for downstream and broader impacts.

The paradigm shift to IRBM needs to draw into river basin level planning and management all government Ministries and stakeholders, at all levels; national, provincial and local. Decentralisation of management responsibility to river basin commissions, provincial and local governments is the key to successful IRBM.

Stakeholder and public participation

Unsustainable land and water uses fostered by ignoranceUnless the principles of IRBM and sustainability are understood by both the government sector and civil society, and then applied at the local, provincial and river basin levels, the capacity of ecosystems to support livelihoods will continue to decline.

Stakeholder and public participation can enhance the quality of IRBM decisions and help implementation by reducing costs and delays. In order to empower local stakeholders it is necessary to invest in education and public awareness programs and activities that target all sectors of society.

Lack of transparency and consultation in decision makingThe failure of governments to inform and consult local people about development and river/water resource management proposals that may impact on them is strongly counter-productive to the ethos of IRBM, breeding conflict and resentment among stakeholders.

Opportunities to participate in decision-making and providing access to management-related data are key aspects of gaining the support, involvement and commitment of stakeholders for implementing IRBM.

Economic measures and financial incentives

Failure to consider all costs (economic, environmental and social) of development activities Where economic cost and benefits are the primary consideration of impact assessment processes, then unsustainable land and water use practices are promoted when external costs – both environmental and social – are excluded from resource allocation decisions.

The global trend in impact assessment is to consider the full range of environmental, social and economic cost and benefits, and this is now supported by robust methods for valuing the services provided by ecosystems within these assessment processes.

Failure to provide economic incentives and remove disincentives to sustainability Not valuing the full range of services provided by ecosystems has contributed strongly to their widespread degradation. Unsustainable land and water management practices have unwittingly been encouraged and even subsidized by governments, both through their ignorance of the broader social and environmental costs , and through the promotion of an economic development agenda as a priority.

There is now a vast array of economic measures and financial incentive options being applied in China and internationally that are proving highly successful in transforming land and water management into sustainable development enterprises. Two of several keys to their successful application in a Chinese context are to tailor the measures to fit local situations and to combine measures together in creative ways.

Applying IRBM-related technologies

River management problems not being addressed through available technologiesTypical river management problems are flooding, pollution, water scarcity and loss of biodiversity. Associated with these are escalating human health costs, damage to urban, rural and industrial infrastructure, food and water shortages, and lost opportunities for economic development and poverty reduction.

An IRBM approach helps to mobilize these technologies in a strategic and carefully planned way. This leads to a reduction in these impacts, while not compromising development and social betterment aspirations.

The solutions IRBM offers

Institutions and legislation

Pipedreams? Page ��

Whereitisbeingapplied,IRBMdiffers

markedlyfrombasintobasinandisstrongly

dependentonthecomplexityofthebasin’s

socio-economicandpoliticalenvironment.

Mostbasinsfacesimilarhurdles,suchas:

• Gainingpoliticalagreementbetween

governments(onprovincial,nationaland

internationallevel);

• Bringingtogethercompetingstakeholders

tosharetheirknowledge,learn,appreciate

newperspectivesandreachagreementson

sustainablesolutions;

• Overcomingtheperspectivethatwaterand

aquaticbiodiversityareacommonresource

thatcanbeusedwithoutlimit;

• Gatheringhighquality,up-to-datedata;

• Gettingproperassessmentof‘needsand

options’fordevelopmentproposals;

• Providing incentives for more efficient use of

divertedwaters;

• PlanningfortheexploitationofaBasin’s

resourceswithoutunderminingtheir

sustainability;and

• Ensuringsafetyforpopulationsfrom

recurring floods and their relationships with

landusechangeinthebasin(watershedand

floodplain especially).

AnIRBMplancanfocusonvarioustopics,

butabasinorganisationisnecessaryto

coordinate,integrate,promoteand/oreven

enforcedecisionsregardingtheuseand

managementofnaturalresourcesonabasin-

widescale.ByundertakingOptionsandNeeds

assessments,possiblealternativestodevelop

thebasininamoresustainablewaywillbe

identified. Tools for better water management

thatmaybeappliedincludepaymentsfor

environmentalservices(seeBox4),mimicking

natural water flows as far as possible -

environmental flows (Tilders, 2002).

Tobetterintegratewateruseandconservation

inriverbasinmanagement,appropriatewater

lawsareneeded.Tomaximiseconservation

andsocio-economicoutcomes,theselaws

should:

• Define the water basins or the

transboundarywaterbasinsthelawis

designedfor;

Box4:Payments for environmental services (PES) – an incentives tool

thatalignswithIRBM

Itisnowwidelyrecognisedthatnaturalecosystemsproduceawiderangeof

environmentalservices.Theseincludecarbonsequestrationofforests,regulation

ofwaterquantityandqualitybywatersheds,scenicbeautyandbiodiversity

conservation.Proponentsofpaymentsforecosystemsservicesarguethat

thefailureofsocietytocompensatelandmanagersfortheseservicesisakey

contributoryfactortotherapidandnegativechangesinland-usethatisbeing

witnessedglobally.

PESmechanismsaremarket-basedinstrumentsthataroseasaresponseto

remedymarketfailuresassociatedwithenvironmentalservices.Thebasicprinciple

ofPESisthatthosewhoprovideenvironmentalservicesshouldberewardedfor

doingso.Thismeansmechanismsareputinplacethattransferrewardsfrom

those who benefit from the environmental service to those who manage it. For

example,landmanagershavethechoicetosustainablymanagethenatural

resourcesontheirlandthatprovideenvironmentalservices,ortoallocatetheirland

andnaturalresourcestootheralternativeusessuchasagriculture.Inmanycases,

however,theservicesprovidedbynaturalresourcesarenotrestrictedandthe

benefits they provide accrue beyond the people who manage them. For example,

upstream watershed protection services typically benefit downstream stakeholders,

includingdrinkingwatercompanies,bottlingcompaniesandhydroelectric

companies. In most cases, however, these beneficiaries have not compensated

upstreamlandmanagersfortheprovisionoftheseservices,andtheresultisthat

beneficiaries have been “free-riding” - deriving benefits at someone else’s expense.

PESaimstochangetheincentivesforlanduseinordertomaintainorrestorethe

desiredenvironmentalservice.Paymentmechanismsassumethatdecisionson

land use and land use change are largely based on the net economic benefits

thataccruetothelandmanager.Maintaininglandinitsnaturalstatethatprovides

environmentalservicesisseldomamoreattractiveoptionthanitsconversion.

The main reason for this is that benefits of environmental services often accrue to

stakeholdersotherthanthelandmanager,rangingfromdownstreamstakeholders

inthecaseoftheregulationofqualityandquantityofwaterofupstreamforests

andwetlands,tointernationalstakeholdersinthecaseofcarbonsequestration

offorests.Tobeeffective,thepaymenttothelandmanagermusteffectively

change the net benefits, making the maintenance of the natural resources and the

environmentalservicesderivedthereofgreaterthanalternativelanduses(WWF,

CAREandIIED,2005).

• Ensurewaterdependentenvironmental

values are identified and adequate water

flows are allocated for their conservation;

• Define water rights and apportion the

availablewaterresource;

• Define and install a method to make users

payfortheirwateruse;

• Treatwaterrightsseparatelyfromland

titles;and

Pipedreams? Page �5

• Enablewaterrightstobetraded,somore

efficient water users can buy water and

producemore,andemploymorepeople,

bypurchasingwaterrightsfromless

efficient users.

AnexampleofwhereanIRBMframework

hashelpedinrelationtotheoperationofan

existingIBTiswiththerecentrenewalofthe

WaterUseLicencetotheSãoPauloBasic

SanitationCompany(Sabesp)responsiblefor

thewatersupplytotheMetropolitanRegion

ofSãoPaulo,andforthemanagementof

the Cantareira System. For the first time,

therehasbeenanegotiationwiththe

RiverBasinCommitteeforthePrircicaba,

CapivariandJundiaíRiversinorderto

establishnewrulesforthewatertransfer.

Oneofthepositiveresultsofthisnegotiation

wasthereductionofthevolumeofwater

tobetransferredduringthedryseasons

tominimiseenvironmentalimpacts.This

dialoguestrengthenedthewaterresources

managementprocessesandimplemented

IRBM tools. This dialogue solved conflicts

andreducedtheriskofscarcityinonebasin

whilstattendingtoanimportantwaterusefor

humansupplywithinanotherbasin.

Tobeeffective,IRBMalsorequires

stronglegalmechanismstoprovidethe

managementandenforcementframework,

butalsotoclarifyrolesandresponsibilities.

Asindicatedabove,ideally,IRBMwithin

eachbasinisguidedbyanorganisational

bodyorcommission,whichalsohasits

roles and responsibilities specified in law. A

keyroleofsuchcommission’sistoplanfor

sustainabilityandtodothisinconsultation

withstakeholders.Inthisway,knee-jerk,

quick fix decisions, such as those relating to

IBTscanbeavoidedandbereplacedwith

moreconsidered,consultativeandbalanced

decisionmaking.

Transboundarywatershedsorbasins

IRBM,anditsassociatedlegalinstruments,

alsohasakeyrolewiththemanagement,

regulationandconservationoftransboundary

watershedsorbasins.Globallythereare

263transboundaryriversthatdrain45%of

theEarth’ssurface,arehometo40%ofthe

world’speopleandcontain60%ofglobal

runoff.Unilateralactionbyonecountryina

basin,suchaswithdrawingtoomuchwater

throughanIBT,canseriouslyimpacton

othercountriesandtheenvironmentofthe

basin.Multi-nationalriverbasinmanagement

agreementsandinstitutionsareneeded

forsustainablemanagementofthese

rivers.Twotreatiesprovideaframework

forsuchagreementsandWWFadvocates

thatallrelevantcountriessupporttheir

implementation;

1 The1997UNConventionontheLawof

Non-NavigationalUsesofInternational

Watercoursesprovidesaglobalframework

forthesustainable,cooperativeand

equitablemanagementofsharedrivers.

WWFurgesgovernmentstoratifythis

Convention as 20 more ratification are

requiredforthetreatytoenterintoforce.

� The1992ConventionoftheProtection

andUseofTransboundaryWatercourses

andInternationalLakes(WaterConvention)

withintheUnitedNationsEconomic

CommissionforEurope(UN/ECE)has

moreeffectiveprovisionsandisintended

tostrengthennationalmeasuresfor

theprotectionandecologicallysound

managementoftransboundarysurface

watersandgroundwater.TheConvention

obligespartiestoprevent,controland

reducewaterpollutionfrompointand

non-pointsources.TheConventionalso

includesprovisionsformonitoringand

researchanddevelopment(UN/ECE,1992).

WWFurgesUNECEcountriestocomplete

ratification of the 2003 amendment to

theconventionthatwouldenablenon-

Europeancountriestojointhistreaty.

Inaddition,WWFisurgingnational

governmentstocompletenegotiationsin

theUnitedNationsGeneralAssemblyfor

adoptionofthedraftarticlesonthelawof

transboundaryaquifersasaprotocoltothe

1997UNWatercoursesConventioninorder

topromotesustainablemanagementof

sharedgroundwatersystems.

Pipedreams? Page ��

� Conclusions and recommendations

The history of interbasin water transfers (IBTs) to date should be sufficient to sound

very loud alarm bells for any government contemplating such a development.

However, despite the many lessons we should have learnt from past IBT experiences,

many decision makers today continue to see IBTs as a technical solution to restore

perceived imbalances in water distribution. To illustrate this point, an article in the

Hydrological Sciences Journal of �005 states that “interbasin transfer of water in

India is a long-term option to correct the spatial and temporal mismatch of water

availability and demand, largely owing to the monsoon climate” (Jain et al., �005).

Thisisasimplisticpointofviewbased

onthefalsenotionthatmovingwater

fromplacesregardedashaving‘water

surpluses’,towaterscarceareas,canbe

undertaken without significant social and

environmentalimpacts.Thisisthe“pipe

dream”thatgivesthispublicationitstitle.

ThedevelopmentofIBTs,ratherthan

restoringaperceivedwaterimbalance,

usually disturbs the finely tuned water

balanceinboththedonatingandthe

receivingriverbasin.Regularlyoverlooked

inIBTdevelopmentaretheshort,medium

andlongertermimpactsofmovingwater

fromonecommunity(thedonorbasin)and

providingittoanother(therecipientbasin).

Thereisnoescapingthefactthatforlarge

partsofthehumanpopulation,water

scarcityisaseriousproblemandthisis

increasinglyexacerbatedbyachanging

climate.Watershortagescanbeaproduct

ofarangeoffactorsapartfromdrought.

Theseincludeoverpopulationofnaturally

water-poorareas,over-exploitationoflocal

waterresources,inappropriateagricultural

practices,waterwastageetc.Thus,the

questionofhowtomeetthedemandfor

waterinwater-stressedareasremainsan

urgentonetobeanswered.

WWFrecognisesthatwhilelocalinterbasin

transferschemesmay,undercertain

circumstances, fulfil an important role, for

exampleinsupplyingdrinkingwaterto

population centres, the benefits of many

largescaletransferschemesthatarestillon

thedrawingboardaredoubtful.Inthepast

manyIBTshavecausedadisproportioned

amountofdamagetofreshwater

ecosystemsinrelationtotheschemes’

benefits. Social and economic impacts,

especiallyforthedonorbasin,areingeneral

unacceptablealso.

Thesizeofmanyschemeshasmeantthat

alarge-scaleIBTisrarelythemostcost

effectivewayofmeetingwaterdemands.

Ofconcerntooisthatinmanycasesthe

introductionofanIBTdoesnotencourage

userstousethewatermoreeffectively,

continuingwastefulpractices.

WWFbelievesthatanynewinterbasin

watertransferschemeshouldbe

approachedinaccordancewiththe

principlessetoutbytheWorldCommission

onDams.Firstandforemostthismeans

thatanyschemeunderconsiderationshould

besubjecttoacomprehensiveneedsand

options assessment; detailed cost-benefit

andriskanalysesthatconsiderthefull

suiteofpotentialenvironmental,socialand

economicimpacts.

Asadvocatedinsection5ofthisreport,in

movingtoexaminethealternativestoanIBT,

WWFrecommendsthefollowingstep-wise

approach,ideallyconsideredatawhole-

of-river-basinlevel,throughanintegrated

planningprocess.Thealternativesshouldbe

consideredinthefollowingorder:

1Reducingwaterdemands;

�Recyclingwastewater;andonlythen,

3Supplementingwatersupplieslocally,and

onlythen,

�ConsideringanIBT,asalastoption.

WWFbelievesthatinmanycasestheabove

steps will be sufficient to ensure water

securitywithinariverbasin.

Pipedreams? Page ��

Cited references:

Alagh et al., 2006

Arrojo Agudo, P.,2001. Análisis económico del Plan Hidrológico Nacional: de la inconsistencia a la prevaricación técnica. Informe sobre el Proyecto de Plan Hidrológico Nacional. (Economic analysis of the National Hydrological Plan: about the inconsistency of the technical misconduct. Report about the Project of the National Hydrological Plan in Spain). pp. 19-20.

AWA (Australian Water Association), 2005. Status of water in South East Queensland, The Courier Mail.

BothENDS, 2006. The return of the giants. The politics of large-scale infrastructure: ecological impacts and social exclusion. An analysis of the experiences of South-Asia and South-America. Amsterdam,Netherlands, 20 pp.

Chapagain, A.K. and Hoekstra, A.Y. 2004. Water footprints of nations Volume 1: Main Report. UNESCO-IHE Delft, Netherlands. 80 pp. Available online: http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report16Vol1.pdf

Earle, A and A Turton, 2003. The virtual water trade amongst countries of the SADC, in: Virtual water trade – proceedings of the international expert meeting on virtual water trade. IHE Delft, Netherlands. Available online: http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report12.pdf

Gillson, I., Poulton, C., Balcombe,K. and Page,S., 2004. Understanding the impact of cotton subsidies on developing countries. Working paper Overseas Development Institute. Available online: http://www.odi.org.uk/IEDG/Projects/cotton_report.pdf

Government China. Website of the South-to-North Water Diversion. http://www.nsbd.gov.cn

Hoekstra, A.Y., 2003. Virtual Water: An introduction, in: Virtual water trade – proceedings of the international expert meeting on virtual water trade. IHE, Delft, Netherlands. Available online: http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report12.pdf

International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID), 2006. Revised draft report of the ICID task force on Inter Basin Water Transfers. India. 161 pp.

International Water Management Institute and Stockholm International Water Institute, (2004). Water – More Nutrition Per Drop: towards sustainable food production and consumption patterns in a rapidly changing world. Working document produced for CSD-12.

IRBM Task Force of the China Council on International Cooperation for Environment and Development (CCICED) & WWF., 2004. Unpublished report available at: www.harbour.sfu.ca/dlam/04riverbasin%20rpt.htm

IUCN – the World Conservation Union, 2006. Red list. Available on-line: http://www.iucnredlist.org/

Jain, S.K., Reddy, N.S.R.K. and Chaube, U.C., 2005. Analysis of a large inter-basin water transfer system in India. Hydrological Sciences Journal, pp 125-137. Available online (with subscription): http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.50.1.125.56336

Lasserre, F., 2005. Les transferts massifs d´eau. University of Quebec, Canada. 36 pp. ISBN 2-7605-1379-3. Available online (in French): http://www.puq.uquebec.ca/produits/D1379/D1379_INT.pdf

Liang, C. 2005. ‘Contracts signed for water diversion project’, China Daily, 12 Oct p.2.

Liang, C., 2006. ‘Severe drought leaves 17 million parched’, Xinhua News Agency, 29 Aug.

Ma, J,A., Hoekstra, H., Wang, A., Chapagain, A.K. and Wang, D., 2006. Virtual versus real water transfers in China; in: Philosophical transactions of The Royal Society. London B. 361 (1469): 835-842. Available online: http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Ma_et_al_2006.pdf

MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Wetlands and water Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Available online: http://www.millenniumassessment.org//proxy/Document.358.aspx

Molden, D., Shaktidavel, R. and Habib, Z. 2001. Basin – Level Use and Productivity of Water: examples from South Asia, IWMI Research Report 49

Nilsson, C., Reidy, C.A., Dynesius, M. and Revenga, C. 2005. ‘Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world´s Large River Systems’, Science, Vol. 308. pp. 405-408.

Odebrecht,2006. Interview with Mr. F. Takahashi Ventura (responsible for security, health and environment at the project site) and Mr. E. Arfelli (contract director).

Orr, S., 2006. Virtual water trade. Draft version. WWF–UK.

Sharma, D. 2005. Linking Rivers in China: Lessons for India. Observer Research Foundation. Available online: http://www.observerindia.com/analysis/A032.htm

Shelef. G. 2001. Wastewater treatment, reclamation and reuse in Israel. Available online: http://www.biu.ac.il/soc/besa/waterarticle3.html

Snowy Hydro, 2006. Available online: www.snowyhydro.com.au

Swartz, E., Skelton, P. and Rall, J., 2001. ‘Conserving the Maloti minnow in Lesotho -a reality check’ at: http://www.waternet.co.za/rivercons/skuk_present.html

Tilders, I. 2002. WWF College: Integrated River Basin Management Module. WWF and Cap-Net. 64 pp.

Transformation Resource Centre, Lesotho, 2005. Available online: http://www.trc.org.ls/water.htm

Turton, A. and Henwood, R. (eds), 2002. Hydropolitics in the developing world: a Southern African perspective. African Water Issues Research Unit, Centre for International Political Studies (CIPS), University of Pretoria, S. Africa, 269 pp.

UN/WWAP (United Nations/World Water Assessment Programme), 2003. 1st UN World Water Development Report: Water for People, Water for Life. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and Berghahn Books. Paris, New York and Oxford. http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/1/pdf/chap1.pdf

UNDP, 2004. Water Resources of Kazakhstan in the new millennium. 124 pp. Available online: http://europeandcis.undp.org/WaterWiki/images/a/ad/KazakhstanWater.pdf

UN/ECE, 1992. Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes. Available online: http://www.unece.org/env/water/welcome.html

UNESCO/WWAP, 2006. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2: Water – a shared responsibility. UNESCO/Berghahn Books.

US Embassy, 2003. Update on China’s South-North Water Transfer Project. 5 pp.Available online: http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn/sandt/SNWT-East-Route.htm

World Commission on Dams, 2000. Dams and development, A new framework for decision making. WCD

WWF, 2003a. Agricultural water use and river basin conservation (summary). 40 pp. Available online: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/agwaterusefinalreport.pdf

WWF, 2004a. Living Planet Report. 44 pp. Available online: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report.pdf

WWF, 2006b. Free-flowing rivers: Economic luxury or ecological necessity? Available online: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/freeflowingriversreport.pdf

WWF, CARE and IIED, 2005. Equitable Payments for Watershed Services: Phase 1, Making the Business Case. A Joint WWF, CARE and IIED Programme. 52 pp.

Zegarra, E., M. T. Oré and M. Glave, 2006 (in press). Recursos, gobernanza e impactos del Proyecto Olmos en un territorio árido de la costa peruana. Investigadores de Grade, Peru. Parte del Programa Colaborativo de Investigación Movimientos Sociales, Gobernanza Ambiental y Desarrollo Territorial Rural.

� References and further reading

Pipedreams? Page ��

Otherbackgroundsourcesandfurtherreading:

Alagh, A.K., Pangare, G. and Gujja, B., 2006. Interlinking of rivers in India: Overview and Ken-Betwa Link. Academic Foundation, New Delhi, ISBN 8171885209,

BothENDS, 2003. Both ENDS Information Pack nr. 4: Dams and the Environment, Amsterdam. Netherlands. 23 pp. Available online: http://www.bothends.org/service/ip-dam.htm

Brochure Proyecto Olmos,2004. Gobierno Regional Lambayeque, ProInversión, Odebrecht, Concesionaria Trasvase Olmos.

Gujja, B.,2006. ‘Dam may drown a Temple town’, Deccan Chronicle,October 4th, 2006.

International Rivers Network. Available online: http://www.irn.org/programs/lesotho/

International Water Law Project (IWLP). Available online: http://www.internationalwaterlaw.org/

Israeli Foreign Ministry, 2002. Israel´s Chronic Water Problem. Available online: http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts%20About%20Israel/Land/Israel-s%20Chronic%20Water%20Problem

Lesotho Highlands Development Authority. Available online: http://www.lhwp.org.ls

Ma, Jun,2004. China´s Water Crisis. Yang Liu, N. and Sullivan, L.R. (translators). An International Rivers Network Book. Voices of Asia. EastBridge. 242 pp. ISBN 1-891936-27-1 (pb).

Miller, K.A.,2000. ‘Managing Supply Variability: The Use of Water Banks in the Western United States’,in D.A. Wilhite (ed.), Drought: A Global Assessment, Volume II, Routledge, London, pp.70-86.

Murray-Darling Basin Commission. Available online: http://www.mdbc.gov.au

National Integration Ministry (Ministério da Integração Nacional). Available online: http://www.mi.gov.br/saofrancisco

National Water Agency (Agência Nacional de Águas). Available online: http://www.ana.gov.br

National Water Development Agency, Government of India. Million revolts. Established and supported by WWF as part of ‘Dialogue on water, food and environment’. Economic and Political Weeks (pub). Available online: http://nwda.gov.in/index2.asp?sublinkid=46&langid=1

New York Times, 2006. ‘India Struggles to tap the monsoon’.October 2nd, 2006.

Novaes,W., 2004. Lá vem a transposição – atropelando, O Estado de São Paulo, Brazil.

Plano Diretor para o Desenvolvimento do Vale do São Francisco – PLANVASF,CODEVASF/SUDENE/OEA,(1989).

Programa Integrado de Desenvolvimento Sustentável da bacia Hidrográfica do Rio São Francisco e do Semi-Árido Brasileiro – Sumário Executivo, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, (2004).

Projeto de Integração do Rio São Francisco com Bacias Hidrográficas do Nordeste Setentrional, Relatório de Impacto Ambiental – RIMA (2004).

Queensland Government, 2006. Press releases of Premier Beattie about the South East Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy, Australia. Available online: http://www.nrw.qld.gov.au/

Resolução no 411, de 22 de Setembro de 2005, Agência Nacional de Águas, 2005.

Resolução no 412, de 22 de Setembro de 2005, Agência Nacional de Águas, 2005.

San Francisco Hidro-electrical Company (CHESF – Companhia Hidroelétrica do São Francisco). Available online: http://www.chesf.gov.br

Schiffler, M., 2004. ‘Perspectives and challenges for desalination in the 21st century’. Desalination, Vol. 165, pp. 1–9.

Schouten, M., 2003. Development in the drought -The incompatibility of the Ebro water transfer with sustainable development in the Southeast region of Spain, WWF, 31 pp.

Schouten, M. and Soria, M.A.H, 2003. El trasvase Tajo-Segura. Lecciones del pasado, WWF, 24 pp.

Snaddon, K. and B. Davies, 2000. ‘An analysis of the Effects of Inter-Basin Water Transfers in Relation to the New Water Law’. Submission to the WCD. University of Cape Town, S. Africa, 49 pp.

Soffer, A.,2001. ‘Mapping special interest groups in Israel’s water policy’. Available online: http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/waterarticle7.html

Suassuna, J. Recursos Hídricos no Nordeste: o problema não é a falta. É distribuição.

The Commonwealth of Australia, The State of New South Wales & The State of Victoria, 2002. ‘Snowy Water Inquiry Outcomes Implementation Deed’.

The National Integration Ministry (Ministério da Integração Nacional), http://www.mi.gov.br/saofrancisco

The National Water Agency (Agência Nacional de Águas), http://www.ana.gov.br

Vidal, J., 2006. ‘Running on empty’, in Guardian Weekly: Every last drop. Focus on the world´s looming water shortage September 29 – October 5 2006.

Watts, Jonathan (2006). ‘Cracks appear in China´s boom’, in Guardian Weekly: Every last drop. Focus on the world´s looming water shortage, September 29 – October 5 2006.

Wikipedia at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesotho_Highlands_Water_Project

Workshop sobre a transposição de águas do rio São Francisco, Sociedade Brasileira para o Progresso da Ciência, Centro de Estudos e Projetos do Nordeste, (2004).

World Bank, Government of Kazakhstan, Committee for Water Resources of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, 2002. ‘Identification of priority issues in seven major river basins in Kazakhstan. Problem identification and prioritisation workshop in Karaganda for the Nura-Sarysu river basin’. 11 pp.

WWF, 2006c. Illegal water use in Spain. Causes, effects and solutions. WWF, 20 pp.

WWF, 2006d. Milestones in water conservation. Global Freshwater Programme. WWF, 14 pp. Available online: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/milestones_in_fw_wwf_july_06.pdf

WWF, 2006e. Perspectives on dam Polavaram. (Case study India), WWF.

WWF Pakistan et al., 2006. Better Management Practices for Cotton and Sugarcane. Crop management review manual. Draft version.

ThemissionofWWFistostopthedegradationoftheplanet’snaturalenvironmentandtobuildafutureinwhichhumansliveinharmonywithnature,by:

•conservingtheworld’sbiologicaldiversity•ensuringthattheuseofrenewableresourcesissustainable•reducingpollutionandwastefulconsumption

WWFGlobalFreshwaterProgramme

P.O.Box73700AAZeistNetherlandsT:+31306937803F:+31306912064freshwater@wwf.nl

www.panda.org/freshwater

WW

F-U

KR

egis

tere

dC

harit

yN

umbe

r10

8124

7.A

Com

pany

Lim

ited

byG

uara

ntee

Num

ber

4016

725.

Pan

das

ymbo

l©19

86W

WF

®W

WF

regi

ster

edtr

adem

ark

owne

r.