Raising irrigation productivity and releasing water for intersectoral needs (RIPARWIN): RIPARWIN final technical report

River basinsHydrologyRiver basin managementRiver basin developmentDevelopment projectsWater allocationIrrigation waterProductivityIrrigation managementRiceTanzaniaGreat Ruaha River BasinUsangu River Basin

Tap water costs and service sustainability, a close relationship

Water is currently an essential and strategic resource for society and its importance will rise in the future due to the increasing number of threats. However, water management is not currently up to par taking into consideration this well acknowledged importance. Generally speaking, water use is not efficient and loss figures are often too high. The reasons behind this situation are complex and diverse, however, in principle, they can be divided into four categories: cultural, political, social and economic. Since the latter are of most importance, this paper focuses on water costs from source to tap. The economic analysis presented quantifies the costs of a sustainable urban water service in a structured way. The second part of the paper present a case study in which the economic losses linked to leakage are assessed as a function of how expenses are recovered. The cost of apparent losses could also be assessed in a similar way and will always be higher, since apparent losses (unlike real ones) are present throughout the whole water cycle, thus increasing the unit costs.Cabrera Marcet, E.; Pardo Picazo, MA.; Cabrera Rochera, E.; Arregui De La Cruz, F. (2013). Tap water costs and service sustainability, a close relationship. Water Resources Management. 27(1):239-253. doi:10.1007/s11269-012-0181-3S239253271Almandoz J, Cabrera E, Arregui F, Cabrera Jr E, Cobacho R (2005) Leakage assessment through water networks simulation. J Water Resour Plan Manag ASCE. Nov-Dic. 2005 pp 458–466BDEW (German Association of Energy and Water Industries) (2010) Comparison of European Water and Wastewater Prices German Association of Energy and Water Industries, BonnCabrera E, Pardo MA, Cobacho R, Arregui FJ, Cabrera Jr E (2010) Energy audit of water networks. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. ASCE. Nov–Dic. 2010 pp 669–677Coase RH (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ, October 1960den Blanken M (2009) Asset Management. A necessary tool for a modern water company AWWA International Conference on Strategic Asset Management. Miami 11–13 November 2009EPO (Eurostat Press Office) (2010) Facts and figures on the environment: from environmental taxes to water resources. Eurostat Press Office, Luxembourg, December 2010EU (European Union) (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000. Off J Eur Communities 22.12.2000. Pp L 327/1 to L 327/72IWA (International Water Association) (2010) International statistics for water services. Montreal 2010. Canada. International Water Association, LondonKanakoudis V, Tolikas D (2001) The role of leaks and breaks in water networks: technical and economical solutions. J Water SRT - Aqua 50(2001):301–311Kanakoudis V, Tsitsifli S (2009) Water pricing policies in Greece: is there a Common Understanding?. 2nd International conference on water economics, statistics, and finance Alexandroupolis, Thrace, Greece, 3–5 July 2009.Kanakoudis V, Gonelas K, Tolikas D (2011) Basic principles for urban water value assessment and price setting towards its full cost recovery – pinpointing the role of the water losses. J Water Supply: Res Technol 60(1):27–39Logar I, Van den Berg J (2012) Methods to assess costs of drought damages and policies for drought mitigation and adaptation: Review and recommendations. Water Resour Manag. doi: 10.1007/s11269-012-0119-9Molinos-Senante M, Hernández-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R (2012) Tariffs and cost recovery in water reuse. Water Resour Manag. doi: 10.1007/s11269-012-0111-4NRC (National Research Council) (2008) Desalination a national perspective. NAP Press, Washington, D.C. National Research Council, Ottawa, CanadaOECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2010) Pricing water resources and water and sanitation services. OECD, ParisOFWAT (Office of Water Services) (2009) Future water and sewerage charges 2010-15: Final determinations. OFWAT (Office of Water Services), Birmingham UKRogers P, Bhatia R, Huber A (1998) Water as a social and economic good: How to put the principle into practice. Global Water Partnership, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.Roth A (2001) Water pricing in the EU. A review. European Environmental Bureau (EEB), BrusselsWonnacott P, Wonnacott R (1990) Economics, 4th edn. John Wiley, 1990Zhu X, van Ierland EC (2012) Economic modeling for water quantity and quality management: a welfare program approach. Water Resour Manag. doi: 10.1007/s11269-012-0029-

The analytical framework of water and armed conflict: a focus on the 2006 Summer War between Israel and Lebanon

This paper develops an analytical framework to investigate the relationship between water and armed conflict, and applies it to the ‘Summer War’ of 2006 between Israel and Lebanon (Hezbollah). The framework broadens and deepens existing classifications by assessing the impact of acts of war as indiscriminate or targeted, and evaluating them in terms of international norms and law, in particular International Humanitarian Law (IHL). In the case at hand, the relationship is characterised by extensive damage in Lebanon to drinking water infrastructure and resources. This is seen as a clear violation of the letter and the spirit of IHL, while the partial destruction of more than 50 public water towers compromises water rights and national development goals. The absence of pre-war environmental baselines makes it difficult to gauge the impact on water resources, suggesting a role for those with first-hand knowledge of the hostilities to develop a more effective response before, during, and after armed conflict

Comment letters to the National Commission on Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting, 1987 (Treadway Commission) Vol. 2

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_sop/1662/thumbnail.jp

Conceptualising and managing trade-offs in sustainability assessment

One of the defining characteristics of sustainability assessment as a form of impact assessment is that it provides a forum for the explicit consideration of the trade-offs that are inherent in complex decision-making processes. Few sustainability assessments have achieved this goal though, and none has considered trade-offs in a holistic fashion throughout the process. Recent contributions such as the Gibson trade-off rules have significantly progressed thinking in this area by suggesting appropriate acceptability criteria for evaluating substantive trade-offs arising from proposed development, as well as process rules for how evaluations of acceptability should occur. However, there has been negligible uptake of these rules in practice. Overall, we argue that there is inadequate consideration of trade-offs, both process and substantive, throughout the sustainability assessment process, and insufficient considerations of how process decisions and compromises influence substantive outcomes. This paper presents a framework for understanding and managing both process and substantive trade-offs within each step of a typical sustainability assessment process. The framework draws together previously published literature and offers case studies that illustrate aspects of the practical application of the framework. The framing and design of sustainability assessment are vitally important, as process compromises or trade-offs can have substantive consequences in terms of sustainability outcomes delivered, with the choice of alternatives considered being a particularly significant determinant of substantive outcomes. The demarcation of acceptable from unacceptable impacts is a key aspect of managing trade-offs. Offsets can be considered as a form of trade-off within a category of sustainability that are utilised to enhance preferred alternatives once conditions of impact acceptability have been met. In this way they may enable net gains to be delivered; another imperative for progress to sustainability. Understanding the nature and implications of trade-offs within sustainability assessment is essential to improving practice