New evidence, new opportunities: a water stewardship scenius thinkshop
Using the Brian Eno ‘scenius’ concept of going beyond individual genius to gain the ideas and creativity of a group, Water Witness International brought together civil society, government and business people in a thinkshop, to discuss ways to increase collective action around water stewardship.
Women working at a farm in Peru (Photo: CIF, via Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
“We need to find our scenius and move forward faster on water stewardship ambition” were the opening words from Nick Hepworth at this Water Witness International (WWI) event in June, as the WWI executive director sought contributions and ideas from participants.
The thinkshop, taking advantage of the two-day global meeting of the Alliance for Water Stewardship starting the next day, was a moment to gather different perspectives on policy changes, advocacy approaches, new standards and consumer understanding.
In the room were people from the private sector, UK government, civil society and standards organisations, contributing their ideas and thoughts under the Chatham House Rule.
WWI is a partner in the Fair Water Footprints programme – an initiative aiming to transform water use in global supply chains to improve water security in households, communities, regions and countries.
In turn, the programme is pushing for greater commitment to water stewardship to address any negative effects and make all parts of supply chains more sustainable for companies and people’s livelihoods.
Kicking off with the research already done by WWI, participants in Edinburgh were told about the impact on water systems of growing fresh fruit and vegetables for global markets: of grapes, blueberries and asparagus from Peru, tomatoes from Morocco and cocoa from Cote d’Ivoire.
There were other examples given of equal gravity. All of them presenting financial, reputational, legal and physical risks for every part of the supply chain.
It is clear that governance failures in every sector across global supply chains have caused unsustainable and inequitable patterns of water use. There is clear evidence of human rights and environmental harms because of lack of fair water footprints.
It is also clear what is needed. Action from all stakeholders in the supply chain on the five pillars of fair water footprints: zero pollution, zero nature degradation, climate resilience, access to WASH for all workers and sustainable withdrawal. The game needs to change throughout supply chains.
So what happens next?
Participants discussed four key areas for action, world café-style, considering what would make each area ‘fly’, against the ‘banana skins’ or risks any action might present.
- Raising the game through supply chains, disclosure and standards
- Turbo charging collective action – at multiple scales
- Activating people power – public facing communications and campaigns, and
- Muscular advocacy to compel positive change.
The issue is that many supply chain businesses don’t know where they are getting their goods from – they don’t know about the impact on communities
Event participant
Surprising though that may seem, this was the starting point from a business participant for considering how to raise the game with supply chains. There was concern that businesses might move to get commodities from elsewhere if they found out about negative practices, leading to loss of livelihoods.
Equally, simple communications with consumers such as ‘item grown where people have access to safe drinking water’ could serve to raise consumer awareness and encourage businesses to be more proactive in interrogating their supply chains.
It was suggested that perhaps the focus should be at the transformational level, with a clear role for governments and for standards organisations. Voluntary water standards should be strengthened and operate at catchment level rather than being limited to farm level, if action on water stewardship was to be achieved.
They should also capture and build on what is already being done in specific contexts, rather than bringing in external standards not in tune with the local environment.
We’re talking about a finite resource – we are willing to compromise and accept trade-offs if the ultimate result is the best it can be
Event participant addresses collective action
Another participant said that businesses didn’t have the money to do things collectively while someone else queried what collective action actually meant. Despite that, there are companies that are head and shoulders above others in progressing issues collaboratively.
But there’s always the question of power dynamics. Even if collective action might be neutral and open to everyone – global companies to local communities – who holds the power?
In circumstances where different amounts of money are being put into a project, a participant queried whether objectives could be genuinely shared.
How do we get these issues into public conversations? People knowing what a fair water footprint is and caring enough about it to change the way they shop?
Event participant
That was the challenge to everyone: how to activate people power to make changes happen. And an add-on question – where should that advocacy and campaigning take place – in the country where commodities are coming from or where they end up – the UK, for example?
Some participants commented that we might want to avoid giving consumers another thing to worry about and that it could work to incorporate the water message into human rights and other fair trade issues.
The crucial thing would be to be clear about what consumers can do and the difference it will make; the risk – whether people will be willing to pay more for their goods if necessary at a time of financial challenge.
Fairly traded goods should not be seen as an expense that only the privileged can afford.
Muscular advocacy – it works!
There are channels for advocacy such as the OECD complaints mechanism and UN rapporteur (although it was queried whether using these systems has ever made a significant difference). There’s a legal route too – taking damage cases based on negligence or tort law from communities through the high courts. One person said that philanthropies are looking for these kinds of cases to fund.
But there was push back from the private sector: water stewardship in supply chains would immediately be put into a category of reputation and brand risk. Senior staff wouldn’t want a risk like that, which might impact on share price and give rise to legal costs.
Non-governmental organisations were more open to the risk and using legal avenues. A key point raised however was the need to build understanding of water tenure and water rights. There has never been a legal case on over abstraction for example – so no global case law – filling that gap that could be a useful contribution over next few years.
Will businesses start to retreat if there are more cases? Would it encourage ‘green hushing’ around voluntary disclosure? That could become a risk and not actually represent progress.
All this highlighted the importance of understanding stakeholders’ motivations – for the UK government, for instance, the primary driver is UK growth and food security – and how this should inform advocacy positions – never straightforward!
Summing up: a ‘wholescape’ approach is needed
Understanding the contribution of artificial intelligence and current economic and geopolitical contexts were all raised as important additional points to consider.
And fundamentally, participants agreed that taking a ‘wholescape’ approach to water stewardship – of approaching water as integral to all the other issues affecting climate adaptation, nature and people – was vital for making progress.
