Google Brings Water Data to Life

Google Labs [has] launched Fusion Tables, a powerful new online research and data organizing tool that makes it much easier to share and navigate the world’s digital science and technical archives. Fusion Tables, which was developed by Google engineers using sample research data about the global fresh water crisis provided by the Pacific Institute and Circle of Blue, is specifically designed to unlock a treasure trove of facts, trends, and scientific findings that until now have been sequestered in databases and spreadsheets not easily shared.

The new Google technology provides users a rare opportunity to share critical data, probe them, organize pertinent information and generate design elements — charts and graphs — that translate complex information into much more digestible trends. The intent is to enable online collaborators to study and understand in new dimensions the world’s complex problems — the fresh water crisis among them — discern the salient details and organize those scientifically confirmed facts. They can be used to tell stories, offer insights, and propose solutions that heretofore were largely the purview of scholars and scientific experts.

[...] Journalists from Circle of Blue wanted to understand the influence of per capita income and the availability of tap water on the incidence of child mortality worldwide from diarrhea. Circle of Blue merged Pacific Institute data in the Fusion Table Gallery with data sets from the Internet. Fusion Tables created a scatter plot that revealed a noticeable and predictable correlation of death by water-related illness, wealth and safe drinking water availability. As the gross domestic product per capita increased, the percentage of a country’s population connected to tap water increased, and child deaths related to diarrhea decreased.

Source: Aubrey Parker, Circle of Blue, 16 Jun 2009

The popular myth of ‘water wars’

[In March 2009] the UN warned that climate change could spark conflicts over water. But the idea of future ‘water wars’ is a myth, says Wendy Barnaby. [In her essay "Do nations go to war over water?" published in Nature, Barnaby describes how she had to drop the idea of writing a book on "water wars" after speaking to water experts].

Neither Egypt, Israel nor Jordan produce enough water for their needs. But while they have fought wars with each other, it has not been over water, says Barnaby. Instead, areas in need of water import food as a ‘virtual’ boost to water supplies. Tony Allan, a scientist at Kings College London, says more [virtual] water flows into the Middle East embedded in grain each year than down the Nile to Egyptian farmers.

International agreements also help solve water shortages, says Barnaby. Israeli and Palestinian water professionals cooperate through a Joint Water Committee. Similarly, the Indus Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan helps diffuse tensions over water. Barnaby argues that although water management will need to adapt in the face of climate change, the basic mechanisms of trade, international agreements and economic development that currently ease water shortages will persist.

Source: SciDev.Net, 25 Mar 2009

Reactions to Barnaby’s essay posted in May 2009 in Nature reveal that not everyone is convinced that “water shortages can and will be resolved through international trade and economic development” and warn that “the potential for water conflict is on the increase”. Unfortunately the full text of the comments, unlike Barnaby’s essay, are only available to subscribers or by pay-per-view (to read all 5 comments would cost non-subscribers US$ 90).

To learn more about water conflict management go to the web site of Oregon State University’s Program in Water Conflict Management and Transformation (PWCMT). Project Director Aaron T. Wolf is a world-renowned expert in the field of political conflict and cooperation in transboundary water management.

Photo competition: Water Integrity – Visualized [deadline 28 June]

What does Water Integrity mean and how can YOU visualize it?

The Water Integrity Network (WIN) invites you to submit a photo visualizing either the impact of corruption
and/or the effort of anti-corruption work in the water sector. The winner gets an all expenses-paid trip to the Stockholm World Water Week 2009 (including 1 return economy class fair, visa/insurance fees, registration fees, per diems and accommodation for the entire week).

The ten short-listed photo’s will be displayed at the ‘Water Integrity – Visualized’ photo exhibition at the upcoming Stockholm World Water Week.

Submission deadline: 28 June 2009

For full details and enquiries go here.

Water footprint: water use in bioenergy

New research from the Netherlands assesses the water footprint [the volume of fresh water used to produce goods and services for consumption] of bioenergy – the amount of water needed to cultivate crops for biomass. The study’s findings are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) Early Edition.

Building on two earlier studies that estimated the water footprint of food and fibre products as well as the water footprint of heat from biomass, the researchers from the University of Twente set out to provide a global overview of the water footprint per unit of bioenergy such as electricity, bioethanol and heat.

According to the researchers, despite the fact that the water footprint of bioenergy is much bigger than other forms of energy, more than twice the amount of water is saved with bioelectricity production versus biofuel generation.

‘The water footprint of bioelectricity is smaller than that of biofuels because it is more efficient to use total biomass (e.g. for electricity or heat) than a fraction of the crop (its sugar, starch or oil content) for biofuel,’ the research shows.

The team successfully showed the water footprint for 13 crops (barley, cassava, maize, potato, rapeseed, rice, rye, sorghum, soybean, sugar beet, sugar cane and wheat; and jatropha, a suitable energy crop). These crops contribute 80% of the total global crop production.

The study found that for bioelectricity, the most favourable crops are maize, sugar beet and sugar cane, while the least favourable are rapeseed and jatropha, which is 10 times less water efficient.

For bioethanol, sugar beet and potato take top marks, with sugar cane rounding out the top three. Only 1,400 litres of water is needed to make 1 litre of bioethanol from sugar beet, the researchers said. The most disadvantageous crop is sorghum.

For biodiesel, the best crops are soybean and rapeseed, while jatropha is the worst. The researchers said it takes around 14,000 litres of water to produce 1 litre of biodiesel from soya or rapeseed, against an average of 20,000 litres of water for 1 litre of biodiesel from jatropha.

A total of four categories of biomass were included in this study: starch crops and tubers; sugar crops; oil crops; and trees. The researchers showed how the cultivation of crops affects water consumption. They determined that choosing the most favourable site for each crop is feasible when water consumption is linked to the location and climate data. Doing this keeps biomass cultivation in check; food production in areas that lack sufficient amounts of water are better protected, they said.

‘If a shift toward a greater contribution of bioenergy to energy supply takes place, the results of this study can be used to select the crops and countries that produce bioenergy in the most water-efficient way,’ the authors wrote.

Developed by co-author Professor Arjen Hoekstra from the University’s Department of Water Engineering & Managment, the water footprint could be used to determine how people should use the limited supplies of fresh water worldwide, the researchers stated.

‘In the coming decades, humanity will face important challenges, not only to meet the basic human need for water, but also to ensure that extraction of water from rivers, streams, lakes and aquifers [underground bed or layer yielding ground water for wells and springs] does not affect freshwater ecosystems performing ecological functions,’ the research showed.

The authors cautioned: ‘With a world population of 9.2 billion by 2050, as projected by the United Nations, there are reasons for concern over whether the food and fibre needs of future generations can be met in regions with limited water resources.’

Source: CORDIS, 04 Jun 2009

Scientists: avoid plastic-hardening chemical BPA

The Endocrine Society, a professional organization of scientists who do hormone research, on June 10, 2009, issued a statement calling for better scientific studies into health effects of the plastic-hardening compound bisphenol A (BPA) and other substances suspected of disrupting the body’s endocrine functions (EDCs).

BPA, a synthetic estrogen, is used in the manufacture of polycarbonate water bottles and other food packaging; baby bottles; the epoxy resin lining of cans; and PVC water pipes. The National Institutes of Health has found that it can leach into food and beverages; a May [2009] report from researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health showed that hard-plastic drinking bottles containing BPA leach “notable amounts of the controversial chemical into people’s bodies,” The Boston Globe reported May 22.

Studies, including those presented at The Endocrine Society’s annual meeting June 10-13 in Washington, have reported that exposure to BPA and other EDCs affect male and female development, prostate cancer, thyroid disease and cardiovascular disease.

[...] The Endocrine Society said, “Results from animal models, human clinical observations and epidemiological studies converge to implicate EDCs as a significant concern to public health.”

During the society’s 91^st Annual Meeting, several studies were presented that show BPA can affect the hearts of women and can permanently damage the DNA of mice, UPIand ScienceDaily recently reported. Scientists also reported during the meeting that human exposure to BPA may be much higher than the recommended safe daily dose, entering the human body from a variety of sources, UPI reported June 11.

The Endocrine Society is urging humans to avoid using products that are known to contain BPA and other EDCs, according to its statement. It also stated the Society’s intent to actively engage “in lobbying for regulation seeking to decrease human exposure to the many endocrine-disrupting agents.”

New US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg said this month that the agency is reexamining its position about the safety of BPA in food containers. [In] December [2008], the FDA agreed to continue to its review of BPA in food contact applications, while maintaining the position that the chemical is safe. That decision followed a finding in October [2008] by a panel of FDA scientific advisors that FDA’s draft safety assessment of the chemical in food contact applications was inadequate. In August 2008, the FDA said that the public was not at risk from BPA, as WaterTech Online® reported.

The American Chemical Council (ACC) June 10 released a statement in response to the recent Endocrine Society research. In its statement, the ACC said: “These brief presentations on unpublished research are difficult to assess for significance to human health, since they have not been peer-reviewed or published in scientific literature and few details are available in conference abstracts. Bypassing the scientific process in favor of sensational press releases is a scare tactic that will not promote public health.”

Source: Water Technology Online, 12 Jun 2009

Climate change: water levels dropping in some major rivers

Rivers in some of the world’s most populous regions are losing water, according to a new comprehensive study of global stream flow. The study, led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), suggests that in many cases the reduced flows are associated with climate change. The process could potentially threaten future supplies of food and water. The results [were] published on May 15 in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate. The research was supported by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor.

The scientists, who examined stream flow from 1948 to 2004, found significant changes in about one-third of the world’s largest rivers. Of those, rivers with decreased flow outnumbered those with increased flow by a ratio of about 2.5 to 1.

Several of the rivers channeling less water serve large populations, including the Yellow River in northern China, the Ganges in India, the Niger in West Africa, and the Colorado in the southwestern United States. In contrast, the scientists reported greater stream flow over sparsely populated areas near the Arctic Ocean, where snow and ice are rapidly melting.

“Reduced runoff is increasing the pressure on freshwater resources in much of the world, especially with more demand for water as population increases,” says NCAR scientist Aiguo Dai, the lead author. “Freshwater being a vital resource, the downward trends are a great concern.”

Many factors can affect river discharge, including dams and the diversion of water for agriculture and industry. The researchers found, however, that the reduced flows in many cases appear to be related to global climate change, which is altering precipitation patterns and increasing the rate of evaporation. The results are consistent with previous research by Dai and others showing widespread drying and increased drought over many land areas.

The study raises wider ecological and climate concerns. Discharge from the world’s great rivers results in deposits of dissolved nutrients and minerals into the oceans. The freshwater flow also affects global ocean circulation patterns, which are driven by changes in salinity and temperature and which play a vital role in regulating the world’s climate. Although the recent changes in the freshwater discharge are relatively small and may only have impacts around major river mouths, Dai said the freshwater balance in the global oceans needs to be monitored for any long-term changes.

[...]

Some rivers, such as the Brahmaputra in South Asia and the Yangtze in China, have shown stable or increasing flows. But they could lose volume in future decades with the gradual disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers feeding them, the authors warned.

Source: UCAR, 21 Apr 2009

Rotavirus vaccination: WHO move boosts fight against fatal diarrhoea

The World Health Organization has paved the way for children in Africa and Asia to be vaccinated against a diarrhoea-causing virus that kills some 500,000 children annually worldwide – 85 percent of them in African and Asian developing countries. WHO has recommended that the vaccine for rotavirus – the leading cause of severe and often fatal diarrhoea and dehydration in under-five children – be included in national immunization programmes worldwide.

As of 2007 the organization had said more research was needed on the vaccine’s efficacy in developing countries with high child mortality; new data from clinical trials has led WHO to recommend global use of the vaccine, according to a 5 June communiqué. The decision means poor countries in Asia and Africa can now apply for funding to include rotavirus vaccines in their national immunization programmes.

“This [vaccine] will significantly reduce mortality and morbidity of rotavirus disease,” Samba Ousmane Sow, associate professor of medicine at University of Maryland and coordinator of the Centre for Vaccine Development in Mali, told IRIN. “For rotavirus, as with many infectious diseases, mortality is often a question of geography,” he said. “For the many people in rural Africa who cannot easily access medical care, the best and most practical solution [against this lethal illness] is to bring the vaccine to them.”

A child with rotavirus disease – which causes fever, vomiting and diarrhoea – can rapidly become dehydrated. Death from rotavirus is most common where there is no quick access to medical care, so vaccination is the most effective way to prevent severe cases and deaths, experts say.

Transmitted primarily by the faecal-oral route, the virus affects the vast majority of children globally before age three, according to WHO. The virus attacks the villi – tiny projections on the wall of the small intestine. Destruction of the affected cells reduces digestion and absorption of nutrients, resulting in diarrhoea with a loss of fluids.

The virus is resilient and traditional hygiene measures that might prevent other sanitation-related illnesses are not sufficient to limit its impact, according to PATH, an international health non-profit and one of the organizations conducting vaccine trials with WHO and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI). But given that there are many causes of diarrhoeal disease, the rotavirus vaccine must be part of a comprehensive control strategy, including improving water quality, hygiene and sanitation and providing oral rehydration solution and zinc supplements, WHO says in its communiqué.

[N]ow governments will have to prepare an investment plan for including rotavirus vaccine in their immunization programmes. The GAVI Alliance uses a co-financing approach, in which countries procure some vaccines with non-GAVI funds; the intention is for countries to gradually increase their share of vaccines’ cost, making immunization programmes sustainable. The GAVI Alliance board is expected to decide at its November 2009 meeting whether all 72 GAVI-eligible countries will now become eligible to apply for funding to include the rotavirus vaccine in their immunization programmes, GAVI’s Ariane Leroy told IRIN.

Clinical trials of the vaccine are ongoing in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, but WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts has recommended the vaccine for all populations given available evidence, WHO says.

Source: IRIN, 09 Jun 2009

See also: WHO backs anti-diarrhoea vaccine, BBC, 05 Jun 2009

Climate change: the price tag for adaptation

Countries staring into a gloomy future of low food production, less water, higher storm surges, longer dry periods and other expensive consequences of climate change have been told they can adapt at a cost ranging from several hundred billion dollars to over a trillion dollars.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) [is helping] developing countries calculate the cost of implementing measures not only to mitigate their greenhouse gas emissions but also to adapt to climate change. [...] The assistance is being provided by way of the National Economic and Environmental Development Study (NEEDS) in nine pilot countries: Costa Rica, Egypt, Ghana, Indonesia, Lebanon, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan and the Philippines.

The study estimates the cost of implementing climate change mitigation and adaptation measures in the country; then national consultants, with the engagement of the ministries of finance and planning, identify policy and finance instruments available to support the identified measures. With the financing priorities worked out, the countries stand a better chance of accessing funds from the Convention, including the Adaptation Fund set up under UNFCCC auspices. The Fund is expected to raise money from a levy of about two percent on credits generated by the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

UNFCCC hopes to present the NEEDS study findings at the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen in December 2009, which will look at a new global agreement to come into effect after the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012.

The UNFCCC has come up with a price tag of between US$ 49 billion and $171 billion per year globally for adaptation by 2030, based on investment and financial flows in five sectors: agriculture, forestry and fisheries, water supply, human health, coastal zones, and infrastructure.

“The UNFCCC assessment is perhaps the most rigorous one out there, as it breaks down the costs sectorally and examines the impact in detail,” said Shardul Agrawala, principal economist at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the lead author of a new book [Economic Aspects of Adaptation to Climate Change: Costs, Benefits and Policy Instruments] that takes a critical look at all the studies on adaptation costs.

Most global studies, “while relevant for the international discussion on adaptation and its financing, face serious limitations,” he said. “In most cases, the estimates do not have a direct attribution to specific adaptation activities, nor are the benefits of adaptation investments articulated, and many just stack upon the assumptions made in preceding studies and the results are consequently not truly independent.”

The book, which Agrawala co-wrote with Samuel Fankhauser, principal economist at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, also examined the costs of adapting to climate change drawn up by the Least Developed Countries, with specific projects listed as part of the National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA) under the UNFCCC.

The cost of implementing all the projects identified by 22 countries, which had submitted their NAPA by the end of 2007, was about US$472 million, but Agrawala noted that the mandate had been limited to identifying priority projects.

NEEDS was a “sensible way to go about integrating adaptation at a higher strategic level examining all the sectors in the national planning process,” he said. “In some sectors it might just need a change in existing policy or regulations.”

[...] Agrawala said funds might be hard to come by in the current economic environment, but it did open a “window of opportunity” because many countries were investing in infrastructure as part of their economic stimulus packages.

Source: IRIN, 30 Mar 2009

Rights to food and water are also human rights, says Dutch development minister

Bert Koenders. Photo: Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs

During his opening address at the Seminar on Human Rights and the Millennium Development Goals, [Dutch] development minister Bert Koenders said that the refugees in Sri Lanka and Pakistan have the right to food, drink [that might not go down so well in Pakistan, presumably what is meant is water], and shelter. He said that these social and economic rights are also human rights, and that the governments responsible must ensure that they are not violated. He would hold them accountable for that.

His words were supported by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Navanethem Pillay. She stressed the importance of human rights in achieving the MDGs and called for the deployment of legal instruments to this end.

‘Without human rights there will be no MDGs,’ said Koenders.

[...] Mr Koenders organised this seminar because human rights and development cooperation are inextricably linked.

Source: Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 26 May 2009

Quotes from his speech:

“Development organisations – like my own – should seek to build people’s capabilities to do so [be active subjects of their own development], by guaranteeing their rights to the essentials of a decent life: education, health care, water and sanitation, protection against violence, including domestic violence”.

” [I]n March 2008 the Netherlands recognised the right to drinking water and sanitation as a human right. This is a significant step forward in efforts to achieve the seventh Millennium Development Goal. It gives NGOs and lobbying organisations real leverage to persuade governments to do more for the most vulnerable in society”.

[...] we are now looking to see whether our bilateral development pilot projects can be implemented under that right [the right to water]. In this seminar, we want to explore ways of fleshing out initiatives like these. Because sectoral water policies can only work when they empower users and give them rights.

Read the full speech here

Climate change: How much money for adaptation?

With barely six months left before countries have to clinch a climate change deal in Copenhagen in December [2009], a call for more money – over and above development aid – to help poor countries adapt to climate change has been backed by a major report. The report – Closing the Gaps: Disaster Risk Reduction and Adaptation to Climate Change in Developing Countries – is the work of the international Commission on Climate Change and Development (CCCD), set up in 2008 by the Swedish government and chaired by Gunilla Carlsson, Sweden’s Minister for international development cooperation.

The first in its two-step approach urged rich countries to speedily mobilise US$1 billion to $2 billion to help nations most vulnerable to the impact of global warming: low-income small island states and, particularly, African countries. [...] The second step is an effective mechanism for funding adaptation that would be created through climate negotiations.

The Official Development Assistance (ODA) provided by rich countries and other public funds “are unlikely to provide the full resources required to finance adaptation efforts of all developing countries in the long term”, the CCCD commented. The global economic recession is also likely to shrink available funding.

[...] Under the “polluter pays” principle, industrialised countries are obliged to help developing ones adapt to climate change, but developing countries and environmental lobby groups have been wary of much needed ODA being repackaged to pay for adaptation.

[...] “Adaptation is much more than climate-proofing development efforts and ODA,” said the report. “It requires sustainable development: meeting the needs of the present in ways that do not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their need.”

The report noted that ODA totalled $104 billion in 2007, and the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimated that more than 60 percent of ODA could be considered as relating to adaptation. “Obviously, increasing ODA would both provide funds for climate-proofing development assistance and increase funding for adaptation. The appropriate role of ODA in supporting climate adaptation needs to be articulated.” However, Oxfam’s Hill said adaptation cost estimates should take account of the most recent scientific assessments, which showed that previous estimates were dramatically low. “The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has estimated that between $50 billion and $170 billion per year (in current values) will be needed by the year 2030.”

The authors noted that “This is only a twentieth of current spending on development of new infrastructure globally, and a tenth of the expected cost of emissions reductions.”

Source: IRIN, 19 May 2009