I am the River and the River is me

In this blog post, SIWI’s David Hebart-Coleman reflects on the recent UN 2023 Water Conference, which was really a tale of two conferences. Beyond the formal agenda, there was an important conversation about how we can rebuild our relationship with water and develop alternative governance models.

Indigenous knowledge Water and the 2030 Agenda

linktext

Smiling man with glasses, in a collared shirt with a black sweater over it. — no caption

David Hebart-Coleman

Senior Programme Manager,

Water Cooperation and Diplomacy

Ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au.

I am the River and the River is me (Māori Proverb from Aotearoa New Zealand)

As is often the case with such international events, the UN 2023 Water Conference was really a tale of two conferences, defined and undefined. The defined was the Conference strongly connected with the Water Action Decade and led by Member States and United Nations bodies. The results of this were manifested through Interactive Dialogues, Special Events and, of course, the Open and Closing Plenaries. From this, a lot of great things emerged, such as the re-commitment to closing the gap on WASH services, increased attention and investment in addressing transboundary challenges, recognising the important role that freshwater ecosystems play in addressing climate change, and increased focus on understanding linkages across sectors and geographical segments, whether through source-to-sea or through the Water-Energy-Agriculture-Ecosystem Nexus. Overall, organizers including the co-hosts, the Governments of Tajikistan and the Netherlands, should be congratulated for strongly supporting the Water Action Decade and this event.

But there was a second undefined ‘conference’, evidenced through side events that took place both within and external to the United Nations Head Quarters, that often had a different focus. This focus was more on rebuilding our institutions as well as our relationships with our many water bodies, whether lake, river, aquifer, wetland or other important ‘watery’ ecosystem, and perhaps questioning existing institutional and governance mechanisms with a view to transformative change.

“Given personal and organizational commitments to inclusivity and elevating the voices of Indigenous Peoples, this was the conference that I mainly attended. And the message from this ‘conference’ is that not enough is being done to ensure that decisions are fully inclusive of diverse voices and values, including the water bodies themselves. Examples of this lack of action can be found across summaries from the official programme. ”

David Hebart-Coleman

The first example was a regular reference to supporting vulnerable groups, including women, youth, and Indigenous Peoples, especially within the context of WASH. However, of concern was that this reference was inevitably in terms of closing access gaps or ensuring that such groups are consulted, but there was less emphasis on the important role that their voices should play in governance and decision-making, or indeed the role of such groups as leaders or teachers about alternative water governance models.

A second example was widespread recognition of the important role that indigenous knowledge plays and continues to play in responding to climate change and many other challenges. However, such recognition rarely articulated or acknowledged the diverse worldviews and values within which indigenous knowledge is generated or how values such as respect, relatedness, and reciprocity frame land and water governance action and decisions.

A third example was limited attention in the official programme on how values or relationships held by communities and individuals have a material impact on outcomes regarding a water body or freshwater ecosystem, especially during decisions. The International Science Policy-Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services examined the role and importance of diverse values in depth within its “Assessment Report on Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature” and there are many useful lessons applicable to water governance.

“In summary, when pushed for a clear answer on the value of the Conference, I remain on the fence. I feel that the Water Conference both exceeded my expectation in terms of raising water on the international agenda but also didn’t meet many expectations I held in terms of addressing how to rebuild our relationships with our water bodies.”

David Hebart-Coleman

In contrast to the ‘defined’ agenda and programme, such acknowledgements around values and inclusivity were far more common within side events, and it was clear to me that there is a growing appetite for understanding how to rebuild our relationships with our water bodies. Many of the sessions led by Indigenous Peoples or strongly involving Indigenous groups were very well-attended with people being turned away due to a lack of space.

I note that representatives from Member States spoke at such events and acknowledged the need to be more inclusive. While some of this found its way into the plenaries, such as through Aotearoa New Zealand’s submission on Indigenous knowledge and concepts such as guardianship, or Co-chair Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Senior Minister, Social Policies, Singapore, reference to new institutional arrangements that include Indigenous knowledge and values within the Water Action Agenda Interactive Dialogue, or SIWI’s very own Torgny Holmgren’s call for polycentric governance arrangements, I would argue that these positions were not common enough to catalyze some of the necessary changes for addressing global water challenges.

In summary, when pushed for a clear answer on the value of the Conference, I remain on the fence. I feel that the Water Conference both exceeded my expectation in terms of raising water on the international agenda but also didn’t meet many expectations I held in terms of addressing how to rebuild our relationships with our water bodies.