I am honoured to be the keynote speaker at such a distinguished gathering of committed people. As Margaret Mead once observed, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world; indeed that is the only thing that ever has".

This talk is going to be in two parts. First, drawing on your theme ‘A River of ideas’, I will offer some observations on how rivers central to my life have spawned important environmental ideas and movements. Second, I will touch on the main issues being debated in the area of our precious freshwater resources during this International Year of Freshwater.

My life over the past 33 years has been split between New York and Thailand. During the decade of the 1970s I was living in Thailand and observed a number of disturbing trends that affected the coastal areas, the rivers and the environment. As a scuba diver, I watched the destruction of the coral reef zones by tin dredging and dynamiting for fish. The wonderful vistas we saw in our exploratory diving of the early 1970s were irrevocably lost. In the Kwae Noi River, where we had built a vegetable farm, sugar cane factories and other food processing industries were polluting the water and killing the fish. Along the coasts, shrimp farmers were displacing rice farmers. What was happening in Thailand was the pursuit of short-term economic gains at the expense of long-term health of the ecosystem. However, when the fish started to die in the Kwae Noi, the livelihoods of the local people were seriously affected and they marched on the Parliament in protest. By the early 1980s in Thailand, the rivers were dying and a very small environmental movement had been born.

During those same years in New York, activists along the Hudson were agitating to clean up the river. In reaction to the pollution that was killing the fish in the Hudson in the mid-1960s, Robert Boyle mobilized local fisherman to form the Hudson River Fisherman’s Association. Their aim was to fight the polluters and they began by suing the Penn Central Railroad, which was spewing oil from its pipe in the Croton-Harmon Railroad yard. The oil went down the Hudson and destroyed the shad fishery. Boyle and his fishermen, particularly Fred Danback who worked at Anaconda Wire and Cable in Hastings-on-Hudson, had discovered the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 which states that it is illegal to pollute any waterway in the United States, that a polluter had to pay a high penalty if he got caught, and that anyone who turned in a polluter got to keep half of the fine. Using this Federal Law, the people of Croton prosecuted Penn Central and got a $2,000 award. There was a big celebration in the village, and the fishermen were motivated to go after Ciba-Geigy, American Cyanamid and Anaconda. Fred Danback had documented and mapped Anaconda’s pollution violations and the US Attorney used his maps to take Anaconda to court.

In 1973 Anaconda Wire and Cable were made to pay out the highest penalty in United States history: $200,000 for dumping toxins in the Hudson, and in 1975 General Electric was prosecuted and fined $3 million for dumping PCBs in the river. Other groups, including Scenic Hudson, Sierra Club and Clearwater, were part of the effort to go after polluters of the Hudson River. These groups were among the pioneers of the environmental movement in the United States, and the successes of Boyle and his group led to the formation of the Riverkeeper Alliance and the appointment of John Cronin as the Hudson Riverkeeper in 1983. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is its Chief Prosecuting Attorney, having undertaken 200 successful legal actions to date and amassed $2 billion in fines. Now this movement has spread to over 100 local groups in the US and to many other parts of the world.

The most dramatic change that I noticed when I returned from Thailand to the United States in 1981 was that the rivers had been cleaned up and that dead water bodies were again alive with fish. What I didn’t know at the time was that grassroots organizations along the Hudson River were among the earliest groups to go after abusers of our river resources. Also during the early 1970s, the International Conference on the Human Environment was held in June 1972 in Stockholm, which has generally been considered as the starting point of international environmental law. Today there are thousands of various environmental laws, treaties and protocols among developed and developing countries. In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency was created and a new Clean Water Act was enacted in 1977.

The village where my family and I live, Hastings-on-Hudson, is located along the toxic waste site of Anaconda, and the battle continues to have our beautiful waterfront restored. Anaconda was taken over by Arco, which was taken over by British Petroleum, so negotiations are now between the village, New York’s Department of Environmental Protection and BP. Further up the Hudson, General Electric and the EPA are currently arguing over a $460 million clean up operation to remove years of PCB contamination by dredging the river bottom. This is a long story and I won’t go into details, but the point I want to make is that individuals, especially when armed with good solid laws, can create a movement to stop unsustainable use of our water resources. The Hudson River story provides an innovative early and enduring example of how the public can successfully fight water pollution by targeting companies through protests, prosecution through existing laws and lobbying.

At the international level, transboundary water issues have always caused heated debate, and in fact a number of prominent people have said that the wars of the 21^st Century will be fought over water. You are probably well aware of the old battles between upstream and downstream users. However, in our research, we have found much more historical evidence of water as a catalyst for cooperation, rather than conflict. In fact, the earliest recorded treaty of any kind was an agreement on shared water between two city-states of Mesopotamia, Umma and Lagash, in 3500 BC. A number of examples of workable treaties on water can be cited, even between states such as India and Pakistan, and Israel and Jordan, which may be in conflict over other matters. Means of equitable river basin sharing and conflict resolution are being discussed, and a new Water Cooperation Facility has been announced by UNESCO. Rivers provide us the basis for concrete ideas on sharing and cooperation over a resource that no person can live without.

The International Year of Freshwater serves as a reminder that water resources pose a major challenge and should be at the top of everyone’s agenda. This Year was proclaimed as the International Year by the United Nations General Assembly to raise awareness of the crucial importance of water to development and poverty alleviation, and to initiate improvements in water resources management throughout the world. Water remains at the top of the international economic and social agenda, particularly after the World Summit on Sustainable Development last year in Johannesburg. While water quality is the issue that is still being debated along the Hudson, the problems faced in many areas of the world are access to water for basic human needs, water shortages and conservation of the ecosystem.

It has been generally agreed that the world is facing a water crisis. While world population tripled in the 20^th century, the use of renewable water resources increased six fold. A United Nations assessment forecasts that by 2025 two-thirds of the world’s population will face moderate to severe water shortages, unless current habits change. In the words of the Crown Prince of the Netherlands and one of the main patrons of the International Year, "the world water crisis is a crisis of governance, not one of scarcity. At the global scale there is enough water to provide ‘water security’ for all, but only if we change the way we manage and develop it."

Currently, water is misused and wasted. In cities and small towns all over the world water is lost through leakage and illegal connections. In agriculture, the largest consumer of water, efficiency levels in most countries are around 30-40%. Industries and agriculture degrade surface and ground water sources, and entire ecosystems, with toxic pollutants. At the domestic level, the use of water for lawns, cars, showers and toilets in industrialized countries is very wasteful. The US has by far the largest per capita consumption of water – about 160 gallons per day -- and is among the most wasteful.

In developing countries water is crucial for development and poverty alleviation. And yet at the end of 2000 some 1.1 billion people or 18% of the world’s population lacked access to safe drinking water, while 2.4 billion or 40 % of the world’s population lacked access to basic sanitation services. The Heads of State in 2000 pledged to halve the number of people without access to safe drinking water by the year 2015, and this was reinforced by a similar goal for sanitation last year at the Johannesburg Summit. And even though that goal seems ambitious to some, it is very modest. We are not talking about providing a tap in every kitchen. The WHO definition of access is 20 liters or 5 gallons per person per day within one kilometer’s walking distance from the household. It is estimated that the investment required to meet these goals for basic water supply and sanitation would require about $20 billion a year, twice what is now spent in those developing countries – and considerably less than the estimate of the cost of the war in Iraq. Not only does access to water and sanitation improve the health of a family, but it also provides an opportunity for girls to go to school, and for women to use their time more productively than in carrying water.

The International Conference on Water and the Environment held in Dublin in 1992 recognized as one of its four key principles that women play a central role in the provision, management and safeguarding of water. In most cultures, women are primarily responsible for the use and management of water resources, sanitation and health at the household level. Women and girls are often obliged to walk many hours every day fetching water, while men are almost never expected to perform such tasks. Yet all too often decisions about the design and location of water facilities are made without the involvement of the female users, who are most interested in having the facility work properly. Despite their number and their prominent roles and responsibilities in relation to water and sanitation, women often have no voice and no choice in decisions about the kind of services they need or are receiving. In many instances it is men's activities, such as investment in irrigation, rather than safe drinking water, that get priority.

A focus on gender differences is of particular importance with regard to sanitation facilities. Often the availability of latrines in schools can enable girls to get an education, and having water points and toilets near the home can reduce violence against women. As South Africa’s Water Minister Ronnie Kasrils says, "Water is life; sanitation is dignity." It is imperative that we recognize the importance of involving women in water management, and in selecting the location and technology of water and sanitation facilities. Equal participation of women in fact improves the lives of everyone in the community.

Gender differences also have implications for water pricing policy. There is often a difference between willingness and ability to pay. Even though poor women may place a high priority on accessible, clean water, they may be forced to use contaminated water that is free rather than clean water, which they cannot afford. This of course has implications for the health of the community, and may result in much higher costs in health care. On the other hand, in an empirical study of Ibadan, Nigeria it was found that women were more willing to pay for clean water than men.

Our recently established Interagency Gender and Water Task Force has been compiling case studies that show how the participation of women can make an enormous difference in water and sanitation projects. For example, the Self Employed Women’s Association, or SEWA, in Gujarat (India), is fighting to retain control over the women’s traditional water sources. Over the last decade SEWA has developed a highly effective approach to upgrade traditional water sources and to empower poor women to manage these sources.

Another initiative, the WASH campaign, organized by the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council, is bringing its message of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene for all to women in over 100 countries. The Council includes UN organizations, NGOs, bilateral donors, institutions and the private sector. One of the WASH campaign’s pilot projects is located in the Tondo slum area of Manila, and has the support of the Municipal government, the Ports Authority, a women’s cooperative and others. It includes rainwater catchments, sanitation and wastewater disposal facilities. The Teacher Trainer Coordinators are all women; they teach and spread the WASH messages to the residents of the slum, especially the children they teach. The project uses a locally-made soap developed by a female inventor.

As Focal Point for the International Year, I have been most impressed by these and other grassroots movements worldwide which have initiated outreach projects that prioritize access to water and sanitary facilities for the poorest. There are many well-known examples of communities working with local governments, NGOs or local entrepreneurs to provide low-cost sanitation systems and rainwater harvesting systems in urban and rural areas of developing countries. These include the Sulabh Sanitation movement in India, the Orangi Pilot Project in Pakistan, the Magic Eyes project in Thailand and the Condominium model in Brazil. Efforts such as these should be greatly encouraged to empower others to do the same so that movements can spread, scale-up and increase its positive impact.

.

Beyond water to meet basic needs, lack of access to water for food production is expected to be one of the key constraints to achieving food security in coming years. As agriculture accounts for between 70-80 % of water use in most developing countries, improvements in efficiency and management will be needed to provide sufficient water allocations to meet competing needs from cities and industry and to maintain the ecosystem’s integrity. Specialized UN agencies, particularly the Food and Agriculture Organization, are working on technical solutions to making agricultural systems more water efficient, through harnessing technologies such as drip irrigation and less water intensive crops. The FAO is advocating for "more crop per drop" to highlight its commitment to improving water use efficiency and food security.

One of the most important messages that is coming through at the international level is that we need to focus on the productivity and value of water in all its uses, including ecosystem needs, within a framework of integrated water resources management. We can no longer think of using all the water before it flows to the sea. Water that flows to the sea is not lost or wasted. In fact, the coastal zones are among the most productive ecosystems on earth and depend vitally on the inflow of freshwater in the estuaries, deltas and wetlands.

The most controversial issue at the international level, which came out again at the Third World Water Forum in March in Kyoto, is that of privatization of water services. Angry protesters stopped major sessions on financing, led by Michel Camdessus, formerly head of the IMF, and that of the CEO Panel, which included the CEOs of the three major private water suppliers, Vivendi, Suez and RWE Thames. The protesters emphasize the view that water is a fundamental human right and that it should not be treated as a commodity that can be bought and sold for profit. Speakers from the audience brought up all the horror stories about the worst examples of private sector intervention – in Cochabamba, Bolivia, Buenos Aires (Argentina), Atlanta (GA), Manila (Philippines) and others. They seem to believe that the only privatization option is for a private company to take over the whole water system and raise prices to consumers. As an aside, it is interesting to note that the CEO Panel consisted of 21 men on stage while the Camdessus panel was similarly male-dominated.

An uneasy compromise seems to have been reached among the major players from the private sector and national and local governments at Kyoto. Most participants accepted that access to adequate amounts of clean water and sanitation is a fundamental human right. This is in line with a UN Committee judgment in November 2002. Moreover, sufficient water to maintain ecosystem integrity is essential. These two requirements should be ensured by governments, whether through pricing policies, general taxation, borrowing from banks or international assistance.

Beyond these two requirements, however, it was accepted that users would have to pay an appropriate price for water. Sustainable cost recovery was emphasized, which could include targeted subsidies for the poor and demand management to discourage waste. Increasing block rates, which charge consumers more per unit as their consumption increases, would encourage conservation of the resource. Penalties for polluting industries are a valid way to reduce pollution and the costs of treatment. Different rates can be applied for urban and rural consumers, agriculture and industry, all in consultation with major users. Large profits for private companies and denying access to poor people who cannot afford to pay are inappropriate. There was a general call that water should not be included under the WTO rules and General Agreement on Trade in Services.

Overall, it was accepted that public-private partnerships would be necessary to meet the requirements for new infrastructure and management of our water resources. The Chairman of the CEO panel summed it up well: "There are good governments and bad governments; good private companies and bad ones; good NGOs and bad NGOs. The representatives of civil society should not cut themselves off from the possibility of having a beneficial partnership with the private sector. But it is essential to choose your partners carefully."

‘Good governance’ is at the heart of solving the current water crisis. Most players agree that the government needs to provide a solid regulatory framework and legal structure, and retain ownership of the resource. Integrated water resources management needs to address the three Es: economic efficiency; environmental sustainability; and social equity. Within that framework a spectrum of partnership options is available, drawing on the strengths and addressing the weaknesses of each partner.

The value of an event like today is to find out what everyone is doing on the ground and what is actually working. We need to keep talking to each other to reach solutions acceptable to all with the priority of providing for those deprived of their right to water. This means working together with the business community, governments, civil society and other interested parties. The United Nations is in the position to facilitate that dialogue with all stakeholders on the international level.

At home when I gaze out on our Hudson waterfront, it is clear to me that our personal lives and our global work need to be brought together. As Mahatma Gandhi stated "Be the change you want to see in the world." We look forward to working together with all of you as partners in the International Year of Freshwater 2003 and beyond.

Thank you very much.

Marcia Brewster is a Senior Economic Affairs Officer in the sustainable Development Division of the United Nation’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs.   She is the Focal Point for the International Year of Freshwater 2003.  She was responsible for covering the water resources agenda at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.  Ms. Brewster has had a distinguished career working in the areas of water resources management and sustainable development for the last 25 years.  She is also Editor-in-Chief of the National Resources Forum, a quarterly academic journal published in Oxford, England.