Water Conference Full Report 0

I. Executive Summary

While there are plenty of reasons to be discouraged by the state of the world’s water, this study offers good news for innovative wa-tershed stewardship. The report explores cooperative arrangements among urban public water operators, municipalities, civil society or-ganizations and the rural communities from where cities often draw their water.

This paper — and the global conference on which it was based — in-vestigates the common interest and practical collaboration for source water protection that exists between urban and rural communities in Latin America. Because of its instructive track record in working with upstream communities, the NYC-Catskills/Delaware Program was cho-sen as a departure point for discussion. Participating in a learning exchange with the NYC Water System were representatives from some of the largest and most progressive water utilities in Latin America — including Montevideo, Quito, Lima and Medellin. They were joined by mayors and municipal workers from cities in Central

Urban Water Utilities and Upstream Communities Working Together

A report based on a learning exchange held from May 30 to June 2, 2013 between Latin American public water utility operators and other strategic water sector actors in conversation with New York City and State source water protection advocates

By Daniel Moss, Our Water Commons

America and Mexico, as well as representatives from water funds and environmental and forestry agencies. Civil society organizations were well represented. A list of participants can be found in the annex of the full report.

With water use on the rise and hydrological cycles less and less predictable due to climate change, thoughtful stewardship of our water sources has be-come increasingly complex — and urgent. In the name of economic development, for example, extractive in-dustries are often granted free rein to draw down aquifers and pollute watersheds. The ecosystems, on which we depend and which depend on us to en-sure their survival, are often shortchanged and wither. Lacking confidence in public water, families of modest means spend many times their water bill on bottled water, resulting in even greater wealth disparities.

While water management may be painted as a clas-sic “Tragedy of the Commons”, there are paths for-ward that differ starkly from the one portrayed in the much-cited article of the same name. While author Garret Hardin suggests that shared goods such as water are better held in private hands to overcome mis-management, this work finds an opposite solution, closer to the discoveries of the Nobel Prize winning economist, Elinor Ostrom, who studied the economics and sociology of the commons. She found dynamic

local resource management arrangements in unex-pected places. One of those places is the collabo-rative nexus between urban water managers and rural water stewards.

Within a watershed, there are literally dozens of types of actors, from farming communities to urban water consumers, from beer bottlers to environmental regu-lators. Ideally, they all sit together at a table, ironing out how to co-manage a shared water commons. Indeed, multi-stakeholder dialogues are increasingly common to facilitate this complex social and ecological negoti-ation. Some of these dialogues have been more fruit-ful at moving forward an action agenda; others have stalled in protracted, inconclusive meetings.

In such a non-linear planning process — unfolding through both scheduled meetings and informal advo-cacy — visionary leadership, political power and finan-cial resources clearly help move an agenda forward. This study looks at illustrative cases in which urban utilities put these assets to work in partnership with munici-palities and rural communities to satisfy mutual self- interests — access for all to affordable, clean pub-lic water; a healthy landscape; and sustainable liveli-hoods that lift communities and protect the environ-ment. They borrow a page from NYC, which brokered a deal with upstream farming communities based on

the simple logic that a good en-vironment yields good water. That urban utility made invest-ments from its operating budget to strengthen a rural economy based on stewardship, rather than simple extraction, of nat-ural resources. This model reso-nates with other utilities around the globe, although each faces unique contextual challenges in its application.

Of course the urban-rural link isn’t always a positive one; upstream communities may be wary of utility bureaucracy and political partisan-ship. They may feel “used” by utili-ties getting back little for their water stewardship and unable to interest them, for example, in paying for re-forestation of the upper reaches of

Urban Water Utilities and Upstream Communities Working Together � Executive Summary �

the watershed or increasing access to water for communi-ties without. They may resent urban sprawl and resource extraction. The sweet spot takes shape when the urban areas recognize their dependency on rural areas for clean, affordable water and rural areas concede that the urban footprint on their landscape is inevitable — on both the landscape and local economy. A virtuous circle isn’t always obvious, at times obscured by relation-ships of a colonial nature. It’s urgent to make urban-rural cooperation work in which rural livelihoods improve as re-source stewardship improves. Without it, well, the future starts to look pretty bleak.

Civil society organizations can play a key role in building a bridge between urban decision makers and communities in recharge zones and in pressuring operators to be more trans-parent and accountable. Organizations root-ed in upstream communities that understand their ecological, social, cultural and political conditions, can, for example, help hammer out and monitor fair compensation for ecological services programs — ensuring that such pro-grams truly resolve economic and ecological problems and are not profitable green-wash-ing schemes.

Key findings of this report include:

1. Public water utilities can and should play a lead role in watershed stewardship. Their technical know-how, public accountability re-quirements and financial resources can help ensure that watershed management form part of a broad public, territorial planning agenda, in which watersheds — and not just water — are treated as a commons and private watershed protection efforts are well-coordinated under a public umbrella.

2. The value proposition for urban water utilities to invest upstream is convincing. Their business de-pends on high quality, abundant and affordable water, which is more economical when filtration treatments can be reduced. This water standard can be achieved through cooperation with upstream actors.

3. An authentic participatory watershed gover-nance structure is essential, with legally-recognized, publicly-funded watershed councils working in con-cert with public agencies and private interests. Water utilities as well as rural communities should both form

part of water governance stakeholder roundtables. Civil society organizations often play an important role in ensuring multi-sectoral co-management.

4. Watershed protection ought to include tradi-tional investments such as reforestation, as well as non-traditional investments, for example, support for upstream watershed stewardship organizations, sanitation infrastructure or environmental policing. In-vestments should be guided by a vision of restoring a healthy “hydro-social” cycle that protects working landscapes where rights to livelihoods are respected and technologies are applied that work with, rather

than against, nature. Such investments should adhere to a long-term, sustainable economic development plan, recognizing urban and rural areas’ distinct inter-ests and interdependence, without urban bias.

5. Effective watershed recovery requires strong public institutions to curb domestic, industrial and agri-cultural pollution and ensure that all concessions are subject to public scrutiny. A transition to agro-ecology and agroforestry practices in the watershed is essential, but fruitless without reviewing water use permits and stopping pollution points, including from untreated sewage.

6. Compensation for ecosystem services mecha-nisms, including water funds, are essential wa-


tershed protection tools but must: a) complement and/or catalyze public investments rather than seek to supplant them, b) be governed transparently to avoid political manipulation c) insert themselves into long term, community-driven sustainable economic development plans to avoid becoming distortionary payment schemes. While these mechanisms may be expensive, the ultimate cost to society will generally be much less than traditional engineering solutions that don’t resolve source sustainability issues. At the same time, it is important not to insist on full cost re-covery for these programs from households of modest means. Such an unfair burden could interfere with the implementation of the human right to water. There ex-ist myriad creative tariff structures to pay for upstream improvements, which include weighting the cost bur-den towards bulk users and concessionaires.

7. Experimentation and learning is critical to better understand how urban utilities can improve their watershed protection role in concert with their rural neighbors, public agencies and supporting civil society organizations. From this experimentation, technologi-cal innovations, new business models and institutional forms may emerge. Such learning should be encour-aged and supported, particularly through partnerships among public entities

8. Watershed protection and advancing rights to potable water and sanitation are intimately con-nected, yet too often separated. In Latin American cities, it is rare for consumers to drink from the tap, tending to spend many times their water bill on bot-tled water. Declaring that a goal of watershed resto-

ration to provide high quality water to downstream users — which was the driver of NYC’s interest in water-shed protection — would likely encourage a powerful multi-sectoral coalition to emerge: the public health and economic justice gains would be enormous. Rec-iprocity is likewise essential; advocates for the right to safe water and sanitation should actively support the efforts of watershed conservationists.

9. The ultimate protection for watershed health is an informed groundswell of advocates. Simple water conservation campaigns are not likely to gen-erate the “army” of active water citizens required to overcome the world’s water crisis. Patient, in-depth community education is essential for consumers to re-imagine their relationship to water, and assume an identity as water citizens who understand the so-cio-economic-ecological realities of the communi-ties from which water derives and embrace a sense of upstream and downstream solidarity. It is these water citizens who will continue to carry a progressive water agenda forward, across sectors, even as elected officials come and go.

This report describes a growing, community of wa-tershed stewards seeking to advance urban-rural cooperation in managing a shared water commons. It is the contributing writers’ greatest hope that this publication contributes to an active learning commu-nity reinforcing the link between cities and watersheds to guarantee water security. The path to collaboration is too often neglected even as it is well worn and obvi-ous — simply follow the water back from the tap to the rural landscape.


II. Introduction and Background

It’s a game-changing win when urban water consumers can rely on high quality drinking water and upstream communities are supported in stewarding water sourc-es. While that watershed management philosophy is still some distance from mainstream, there are positive signs that it is inching in that direction. This report an-alyzes that encouraging trend in Latin America.

With urban populations exploding, climate change bearing down and rural areas increasingly depopulat-ed by global economic shifts, building equitable part-nerships between urban water utilities and upstream water-producing communities is an urgent matter. What governance, management and financial princi-ples and practices aid or obstruct this critical social ob-jective? These were the topics explored by Latin Amer-ican water utility representatives and a select handful of supporting water sector experts at the conference, “Urban Water Utilities and Upstream Communities Working Together”, held from May 30 to June 2, 2013.

The conference was held at the Blue Mountain Center in the midst of New York’s Adirondack Park. The con-ference site was opportune for two reasons: The first was the desire to forge an exchange relationship be-tween the Latin American water sector and New York’s source water protection leaders — renowned globally for their work. The second was the generous support provided by the Blue Mountain Center. The Center serves principally as a writer’s retreat nestled on the shores of a pristine lake. The environment models a healthy watershed and the remote setting encouraged two and half days of far-reaching discussion.

The conference featured forward-thinking urban wa-ter utilities, including small municipal operators, seek-ing to build authentic relationships with the upstream communities that steward their water sources. During the course of the conference, a variety of terms were used to describe this urban-rural link in water man-agement. Professor Kala Vairavamoorthy, an interna-tional expert in meeting the challenges of urban water

Urban Water Utilities and Upstream Communities Working Together � Introduction & Background �

services from the Patel Center for Sustainability at the University of South Florida spoke of integrated urban water management. Juan Jose Consejo of Oaxaca, Mex-ico’s Institute for Nature and Society (INSO) coined the term restoring the hydro-social cycle. Albert Appleton, former New York City (NYC) Water Commissioner and creator of the famed York City Catskills urban-rural partnership for watershed stewardship, framed it as bioregional planning. These concepts are intertwined and informed by the broad body of work known as integrated water resources management (IWRM). The successful implementation of IWRM, noted confer-ence participants, has been spotty at best and is a re-cord upon which they seek to improve.

Participating in the conference were representatives from some of the largest and most progressive wa-

ter utilities in Latin America — including Montevideo, Quito, Lima and Medellin. They were joined by mayors and municipal workers from cities in Central America and Mexico, as well as representatives from Mexican water funds and environmental and forestry agencies. Civil society organizations were well represented. A list of participants can be found in the annex.

To describe choices faced by water planners, Profes-sor Vairavamoorthy showed a slide of a highway with three lanes — one continuing straight on, a second veering slightly and a third, an exit towards a new di-rection. Over the subsequent days, conference partic-ipants discussed just what that unknown road looks like for cities and upstream communities cooperating on watershed management — and the changes it calls on society to make.

Urban Water Utilities and Upstream Communities Working Together � Introduction & Background �

III. Governance and Management

Direct from NYC: Lessons for Latin America

The New York City Water System is well known for its collaboration with upstream water “producers” (farm-ers) working towards the twin goals of clean water and a viable watershed farm economy. To guarantee wa-ter quality, there ensued a debate about system de-sign: Was it better to build a multi-billion dollar water treatment facility or to protect the Catskills/Delaware watershed? As water quality deteriorated in the up-state reservoirs, said Albert Appleton, the more cost effective solution became obvious. The question was how best to do it and overcome the resistance of tra-ditional water quality experts who viewed watershed protection with skepticism. But watershed protection won the day and management of NYC’s drinking water followed a simple rule of thumb: A good environment will generate good water.

After identifying pollution points in the watershed, the Commission set target reductions in farm-born pollution, in particular dairy cattle excrement, which

could carry disease — causing pathogens into water-shed streams and from there into City reservoirs. Initial use of command and control environmental regula-tions wasn’t well received by wary farmers, who were not keen to change their ways to accommodate NYC’s thirst.1 Through a lengthy negotiation to design a vol-untary program to meet NYC’s clean water require-ments and improve the farm economy, urban and ru-ral found common ground. Appleton wasn’t interested in running a regulatory program; he wanted afford-able, clean water. NYC paid for on-farm improvements through a clean water/farm investment program called “Whole Farms”, built on farmers’ own organization, which guaranteed a critical mass of participants.

As Commissioner, Appleton’s logic went like this: The tension is undeniable. For NYC’s water to be clean, the rural ecosystem must be healthy. As colonialist as it may sound, rural landscapes are in practice largely de-termined by what the cities want — food, water, second

Urban Water Utilities and Upstream Communities Working Together � Governance & Management �

homes, bucolic scenery, etc. Do cities prefer a depopu-lated landscape with pockets of pretty, conserved land and a few large input-intensive and pollution-intensive industrial farms to feed them? Or a healthy ecology built on family farms practicing sustainable agriculture and embedded in a sustainable rural economy? In Apple-ton’s view, the natural re-source-based rural economy can’t be sustained without sustaining the environment and likewise, the environ-ment won’t be healthy with-out supporting the rural society that inhabits it. Fur-thermore, the rural dwellers can’t restore their landscape alone. With the help of rural investments from an urban water utility — which gen-erates considerable reve-nue — the environment may be able to be restored over time. But, Appleton warned, cheap water and cheap food are incompatible with a sustainable landscape and good water quality.2 Plan-ners and politicians need to make tough choices. The NYC Water System was the right institution to catalyze necessary changes in farm practices and the local economy at the watershed lev-el, but clearly a rethinking of urban-rural relationships in all public planning was needed for smarter choices to be taken.

What lessons does the NYC case offer Latin American water utilities? Daoiz Uriarte, Vice President of Uru-guay’s public water utility, Obras Sanitarias del Estado (OSE), confessed that until he’d listened to Mr. Apple-ton’s presentation, he’d nearly given up on reducing pollution originating on farms. With Uruguay’s boom in farm exports, agribusiness’ footprint on the water-shed is growing larger. With serious money at play, it is no simple matter to change profitable industry practices that dump dangerous levels of phosphou-rous into the drinking supply. How does the NYC ex-perience apply to Uruguay?

Maybe, Uriarte commented, by presenting legitimate and achievable urban drinking water targets while honoring farmers’economic requirements, a solution can emerge. However, an important consideration for OSE is to avoid payments for environmental service

which compensate farm-ers not to pollute — a pub-lic expense which most Uruguayans would find objectionable.

A similar challenge exists in Peru. There, the elephant in the room is the mining in-dustry. Any watershed con-servation measures that SEDAPAL — Lima’s public water utility — might set in place to improve water quality are more than off-set by the mining indus-try’s effluents. For Lima’s water to improve, mines must spend on pollution control. How does NYC’s win-win case square with a potential win-lose situ-ation in Peru’s highlands? Where extractive indus-tries have significant po-litical power and where regulations and environ-mental policing are limit-

ed, payment for environmental services arrangements must be accompanied by strengthened laws, regula-tions and policing.3

In Mexico, the NYC case has been a source of inspira-tion. Joaquin Saldaña from Mexico’s Forestry Commis-sion, CONAFOR, commented that much of CONAFOR’s work in protection of natural areas and payment for environmental services is based on the NYC case. While that program obviously hasn’t been imported whole-sale — conditions are far too different — it has been instructive. In the past 11 years, Mexico has made sig-nificant progress in passing laws and regulations and putting in place innovative funding programs. These could not have been imagined even a decade earlier.


Urban Utilities Leading Watershed Protection

As might be expected, stakeholder involvement in watershed management was a topic of much dis-cussion at the conference. There was no dispute over the premise that all watershed actors must be at the table — that now standard procedure didn’t generate controversy. But as much as these participatory pro-cesses were seen as crucial, one lament was that they can fall victim to trying to please too many actors — with few politically risky decisions and actions taken. Yolan-da Andía described a lengthy process of this nature in Lima, led by the National Water Authority, in which the aforementioned elephant in the room — pollution by the mining industry — was not addressed fully.

A consensus began to emerge that the water utili-ties themselves can and should be natural leaders of these processes — and that they are not always ade-quately involved in them. In an ideal circumstance, an accountable public water utility — with accountabili-ty being a desired but not always an existing state — feels pressure to provide clean water to customers, report on budgets and keep costs down. Within the course of daily business operations, water quality monitoring may very well be part of their everyday work. Ms. Andía described long, harrowing days of recalibrating water treat-ments following mine efflu-ent discharges. Such water quality data could be wide-ly shared with civil society organizations also involved in watershed recovery ef-forts. Participants at the conference were interested to learn from Jane Thapa, of the New York State De-partment of Public Health,4 of NY State’s transparen-cy requirements through which utilities must issue regular reports to customers on water quality and finances. This kind of transparency mechanism, the Latin Amer-icans felt, would be quite useful in strengthening pub-lic accountability.5

Depending on regulators’ disposition, utilities may be able to assess charges to customers to pay for upstream conservation. Some forward-thinking utili-ties already build into their operating budgets invest-ments in upstream work, identifying sensitive lands to be conserved or environmental services programs that might be created.

The public utility brings another asset to the table for innovative water management — its organized and skilled workforce. With Lourdes Martinez, OSE em-ployee and member of its trade union, FFOSE, the conference explored how FFOSE encourages the utility to increase involvement in upstream and source wa-ter matters. Stereotypically, one might expect a trade union to be only concerned with salary and benefits. While those are concerns, FFOSE also seeks to stretch the utility in new directions. FFOSE was a leader in the national referendum for the right to water through the National Committee in Defense of Water and Life, They now actively participate in convening the con-stitutionally-mandated watershed councils. Not only is

watershed protection the right thing to do, Ms. Marti-nez said, but if customers lose faith in the water utili-ty’s water quality, we’ll lose our jobs. That’s a far-sight-ed view for an actor often accused of operating from narrow interests.


Of course, not all watershed restoration processes are directed by utilities or even include them. Each pro-cess has its unique dynamic. Many are led by envi-ronmental or community organizations. In Lima, the water fund Aquafondo formed their board with pri-vate enterprise and environmental organization lead-ership. The public utility, SEDAPAL is not yet involved. Many utilities feel themselves too over-stretched ser-vicing their urban customers to work upstream. They may consider it mission-creep. Their engineers may be more interested in water filtration technologies or tapping new water sources than leading, say, a wa-tershed reforestation program. Negotiating with up-stream communities about their needs may not be in the utility operators’ comfort zone or be part of an engineer’s toolkit. In some cases, it may not be clear how upstream work will reduce water production costs and the utility may not have the skills to conduct the economic and social analysis. Pressures to keep wa-ter rates down in the short run may preclude creative thinking about upstream investments.

Due to perceptions of bureaucracy and political parti-sanship, civil society organizations and municipalities may feel dissuaded from working on watershed stew-ardship with public utilities. As mentioned, water utility transparency and accountability is a desired state, not necessarily a present capacity. In the case of Central

America’s Mancomunidad Trinacional Fronteriza Rio Lempa (MTFRL), mayors have not yet found the best way to work with ANDA – El Salvador’s water para-statal – which has expressed little interest in support-ing the MT’s Lempa River headwaters conservation efforts – despite the fact that 37% of San Salvador’s water is drawn from the Lempa River. The river begins in Guatemala, crosses Honduras and flows into the Pa-cific Ocean in El Salvador.

Whether it is a matter of utilities working upstream themselves or civil society organizations learning to collaborate with them, the learning curve is steep. Changing utilities’ culture and practice to incorporate local perspectives6 likely requires a significant institu-tional shift, one which may require political and civil society pressure.

Can watershed restoration be financed by the water utility? The cost of ensuring clean water is already gen-erally a utility cost, similar to maintaining a delivery system. In the NYC case, clean water proved cheap-er through upstream investments than engineering solutions. At the same time, concerns were expressed that a well-designed watershed program could be too costly to pass on to wáter consumers, particularly where wáter is already expensive.7 In such cases, it may be necessary to look for other public revenue streams,

based on the argument that public and environ-mental health are public goods and justify public spending.

A wrinkle in tightening the weave been cities and watersheds is the fact that the urban-rural link is not always spa-tially obvious. Francisco Gordillo, technical di-rector for FORAGUA in Loja, Ecuador, described village water systems in distinct micro-water-sheds that aren’t easily linked to downstream utilities, perhaps because they don’t flow into ur-ban supplies or because


they may be owned privately and no ordinance requires their protection. In those instances, isolated rural areas resolve their water supply and watershed protection challenges alone. Likewise, when urban utilities draw groundwa-ter for supply, they may not easily perceive their connection to upstream rural communities.

Managing Watersheds for Rights to Water and Sanitation

Lourdes Martinez, from FFOSE, Uruguay, ex-plained how watershed protection followed nat-urally from a campaign for the right to water and a requirement that it be administered by public agencies. In a demonstration of the inter-depen-dence between land and water, a second refer-endum mandated revamped territorial planning (resulting in new land use regulations). Yet, the regulations are difficult to implement. The newly formed watershed councils in which FFOSE participates lack regulatory authority to impose zoning restrictions in the watershed; it is difficult to rein in industrial agriculture and its impact on the country’s rivers and water supply.

In Ecuador, the rights of another actor, a relatively quiet one, inform water management. Ecuador’s 2008 consti-tution recognizes the rights of nature.8 Among priority uses of water, safeguarding ecological health is among the top three. With a healthy environment, the logic goes, clean water flows abundantly to human commu-nities, which in turn can use the water for economic purposes as well. Watershed management in Ecuador is, in theory, guided by these priorities — although, as was explained by the Ecuadoran participants, due to extractive industries ‘ economic importance, viola-tions of the human right to water and rights of nature are often overlooked. Nevertheless, said Juan Carlos Romero of the Quito water enterprise, EPMAPS,9 a sig-nificant mindshift has occurred in the average water engineer due to the new constitutional commitments to rights to water and rights of nature.

Along with the right to water, rights to sanitation were enshrined in a 2009 UN General Assembly declaration. Clearly, water quality improvements can only have lim-ited success without sanitation action. In El Salvador, the upstream Mancomunidad Trinacional is enlisting the support of the capital city of San Salvador’s plan-ning department, OPAMSS, to improve urban water by reforesting the upper watershed. At the same time,

San Salvador is subject to downstream pressures to clean up its sanitation deficits.

How to pay for this sanitation infrastructure remains a challenge. The experience of the Brazilian NGO, IBIO may be instructive here. IBIO is an NGO contracted by the national water agency, ANA, to manage a water-shed improvement program on the Doce River. Carlos Brasileiro, its president, described a competitive grants process, which frequently makes grants to cities for sanitation improvements.

A human rights commitment also means that water must be managed for poorer families to enjoy a basic level of affordable water and sanitation. Cross-subsidy arrangements become increasingly important if water rates need to rise to pay for watershed protection. Left unresolved in conference discussions was how up-stream investments can help resolve rural communi-ties access to water and sanitation, a global crisis for hundreds of millions of families. Ideally, downstream and upstream collaboration brings benefits to both parties — clean water downstream and not only a healthier watershed upstream but safe drinking water access as well. Upstream investments, however, tend to focus principally on conservation and measures to ensure a high quality urban water supply; it is neither clear, nor common that rural communities’ water is-sues are resolved.10 Yet reciprocity is crucial. If col-laborations are perceived as colonial — with benefits accruing principally to the more powerful urban party — a true partnership is not likely to be sustainable.



Discussed only briefly but important nevertheless, was the topic of land rights. Increasingly, secure land title has been identified as a hinge-pin in achieving conser-vation goals. The rapidly expanding work of the Rights and Resources Initiative,11 for example, is premised on the idea that to be sustainable, climate change mit-igation strategies must enlist the support of forest and farm communities, made more stable with secure titles. How can water utilities support land titles and other forms of economic and social stability for com-munities living in sensitive areas of the watershed? More exploration is necessary.

Overcoming Weaknesses in Regulations, Compli-ance and Policing

Watershed stewardship is, at minimum, two-handed. While one hand restores ecologic health through such measures as soil conservation and reforestation, the other reduces pollution points and prevents ecosys-tem damage. The former is no easy task, requiring enormous ecological and cultural sensitivity and eco-nomic planning. In many ways, however, the latter is an even more formidable challenge, requiring public agencies to mediate conflicts over water and land use. While the NYC case demonstrates the enormous pos-sibilities of voluntary cooperation in making environ-mental changes, it is significant that a credible regu-latory threat loomed in the background. That threat is weaker in many parts of Latin America. Yolanda Andía from Lima’s water utility, SEDAPAL, showed graphs of heavy metal readings in streams near mining op-erations and described the challenges in treating the

water back to a potable form. Through chemical and mechanical treatments, SEDAPAL must hurry to make the water drinkable before it reaches Lima taps. The utility receives little support from the national water authority and sister agencies to curb industrial pollu-tion. It does not have the authority to sanction mining companies, much less demand compliance with fre-quently-ignored water laws.12

Utilities and NGOs may find support for their soil con-servation and reforestation projects; less frequently can they count on a united front against polluters. The NYC case demonstrated success in working with small farmers to stem pollution, who discovered self-in-terest in discarding contaminating farming practic-es. The Latin Americans wondered if a deal could be brokered with agro-industrial farms and mines, asking if NYC was only able to prevail because the farmers because were weak politically. Appleton clarified that was not the case. The farmers in the watershed, like many farmers in the U.S., had opposed regulation of farm pollution. That vocal opposition was a major rea-son that the public health community assumed that watershed protection wouldn‘t work. NYC prevailed against the farmers partially because the City respect-ed their political strength and made clear that they were only up in the watershed to get clean water. The farmers, once they saw that environmental regulation could be compatible with their self interests, concluded that rather than engage in a bloody political brawl, this could be an opportunity. The same logic could hold true with agribusiness and mines — if and when sus-tainability is a shared agenda and measured in terms of

economic activity compatible with environmen-tal stewardship rather than degradation.

The current threat of fracking in the NY watershed provides a sort of test case as to if and how a utility’s customer base might become advo-cates for regulation. Thus far, there has been overwhelming push back by New York City, from the Mayor on down to prevent fracking in the watershed. The resulting commitment from the Cuomo Administration to ban fracking illus-trates the depth of NY’s commitment to water-shed protection.

healthy cities and a healthy countryside. In some cas-es, the extractive mindset, in which the countryside merely produces water for growing cities, is ebbing, replaced by rural-urban interdependence.

INSO hopes that this rethinking of water and water-sheds, city and country will become the new founda-tion for multi-stakeholder work, where confrontation need not to be the norm. That would mean that stake-holder groups would not have an urban bias, starting negotiations with, “what can we pay you to give us city folk our clean water?” but rather a more authentic sense of mutual problem-solving for mutual benefits. At the same time, rural stakeholders would embrace their economic dependence on cities to pay for the urban goods that they import. This requires an urban appreciation for rural goods and services — for exam-ple food, fiber, extractive resources and tourism.

Offering a complementary indigenous perspective at the conference was Francisco Tzul, ex-mayor of the 48 Cantones in Totonicapan, Guatemala. The 48 Can-tones is a centuries-old organizational structure to coordinate management of natural resources among 48 small, indigenous villages located around the city


Transforming Communities’ Relationship to Water and Cities Relationship to Rural Areas: Where Education Meets Philosophy

For the INSO in Oaxaca, co-management and social participation are key elements of their work, achieved through a dialogue between civil society and gov-ernment. Significantly, INSO recently hosted their 35th Foro Oaxaqueño de Agua, during which they presented a “Common Plan for the Common Good”, created with communities to restore the Verde-Atoyac River Watershed and improve the living conditions of its inhabitants.13

As part of that organizing work, INSO seeks to trans-form public thinking about the symbiosis between wa-ter and society, cities and the countryside. Juan Jose Consejo, INSO director, spoke of “ruralizing” the city and “urbanizing” the countryside — meaning the res-toration of the proper functioning of a “hydro-social cycle”. That suggests building green infrastructure into cities and conservation infrastructure into the coun-tryside, with public agencies and civil society orga-nizations co-managing shared watersheds. It means rethinking large-scale engineering as the default ap-proach to solving water catchment and distribution. It requires asking: What kind of countryside does the city want? If the goal is simply to extract water from the countryside for urban use, most efficient would be to pave the streambeds and funnel all water to downstream towns and cities. But if the goal is to have neighbors who live in a working rural land-scape and provide clean water as a by-product of a healthy economy, that’s a different philosophy — and requires a more friendly and sustainable urban foot-print in the countryside.14

To facilitate this change, public education becomes more than simply making the public aware of projects and campaigns. It probes deeper, as it did in the NYC case, seeking to facilitate a sea change in the public’s re-lationship to water, a transformation of principles, par-adigms, and philosophies that in turn strengthens the political will for a city’s investments in watersheds. One hopeful sign that change has begun is that the paradigm of the watershed is beginning to take root. The term is now used freely, even among those who seem not to understand how watersheds actually work. A new ap-preciation is emerging in mainstream circles that there indeed exists a reciprocal inter-relationship between

With few resources flowing from central governments to the Trifinio municipalities,15 combining the water services of federated municipalities puts decentraliza-tion, regional integration and inter-municipal cooper-ation — all essential ingredients for successful water-shed management — to the test. Related challenges include working across three different country’s legal systems and remaining accountable to constituents for quality delivery of city services.

Relatively brief electoral cycles represent a hurdle to fulfilling the long-term commitments needed for suc-cessful watershed stewardship. With elected officials’ political agendas often shifting, shared ordinances and financial mechanisms offer an element of per-manence — which may be resisted by newly elected mayors. In anticipation of this resistance, the mayors that are party to the Mancomunidad Trinacional are required by constituent mandate to contribute to the non-profit, inter-municipal corporation from their city budgets. They sit on its board of directors to steward the investments and can withdraw from the corpora-tion only with their electorate’s approval.16

FORAGUA, in the southern Andes of Ecuador, oper-ates similarly to the MT but with a specialty in water source conservation. FORAGUA is composed of nine

municipalities and seeks to integrate 39 municipalities in the region, all abiding by municipal ordinances jointly declaring conservation areas and environmental taxes. Conservation help is offered by the technical departments of the cooperating cities and by the Technical Secretary of FORAGUA. FORAGUA moni-tors the investments in wa-ter recharge areas and funds are raised monthly through a designated environmental charge to water users. As in the Trifinio region, a series of agreements guarantee

that this process is not interrupted by election cycles —the cooperating municipalities’ commitments are long-term, approved by each cities’ electorate.


of Totonicapán. There, indigenous communities are guided by a Mayan cosmovision of connection to wa-ter, guiding their community stewardship responsibil-ities. The 48 Cantones have, for example, supported a youth group to paint community murals representing a stewardship ethos towards water.

Inter-municipal Collaboration Jointly Managing Watersheds

The headwaters of the transnational Lempa River sit in the Trifinio region where El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala intersect. The region is poor and under-re-sourced; municipal governments struggle to achieve a viable economy of scale to provide public services to their constituents such as water and sanitation.

The watershed straddles the three countries. It is sig-nificantly degraded and its restoration requires the active collaboration of all three countries. Toxic pesti-cides used in one country, even if banned in another, percolate across political boundaries. Unless slopes are forested and soil is conserved across the region, the Lempa watershed will continue to erode.

Hector Aguirre, technical director of the Mancomu-nidad Trinacional and Angel Lara, mayor of Sensenti, Honduras, described the coordinated ef-forts of their tri-na-tional, inter-mu-nicipal non-profit corporation to har-monize environ-mental regulations across municipalities and aggregate basic services. The cor-poration also works with downstream municipalities in and around San Salvador to enlist their sup-port for upstream watershed conser-vation efforts. Ironically, while the Trifinio region pro-duces water for San Salvador, cities in the region such as Ocotopeque, Honduras, have such poor municipal water that many residents won’t even use the brown liquid to wash their hair.


Carlos Brasileiro, from Brazil, spoke about IBIO’s dis-tribution of federal, state and local resources for wa-tershed improvements, collected from bulk users such as hydroelectric facilities. IBIO is a Brazilian non-prof-it corporation charged with managing the watershed council on the Doce River. The council makes invest-ment decisions, discusses watershed threats and can recommend water use restrictions to the national wa-ter agency, ANA. FORAGUA and the Manco-munidad Trinacional, as well as Brazil’s IBIO, broadly share water quality information, in some cases collected with the help of local universities, across municipalities. This joint effort reduces costs for each municipality. The infor-mation can be used to target investments and to pressure watershed and water system managers to improve water and landscape quality.

Public Management Affirmed

One might expect sharp debate about public vs. private management of watershed restoration. That topic is a lightning rod at forums like the World Water Forum, where public-private partnerships and private water management is encouraged. In this instance, how-ever, given the complexities of up and downstream collaboration, crossing political jurisdictions and bro-kering agreements among municipalities, there wasn’t a great deal of debate. The consensus was that suc-cessful watershed management involving urban and rural actors requires public leadership and oversight; a profit motive among some actors might dampen en-thusiasm for this sensitive work.

Solving Problems of a Manageable Scale

In the Catskills, Mr. Appleton mobilized cooperating agencies not around restoring the entire Catskill-Del-aware watershed, but rather a series of manageable steps to guarantee clean drinking water to NYC cus-tomers and a fair deal to upstate farmers. He assured farmers that he was less interested in new watershed protection regulations than in high quality drinking water required by law. This narrower objective, while

still ambitious, could be accomplished through man-ageable changes in farm management — investments that the utility would underwrite. This approach ap-peared more reasonable to the farmers than being told that they were responsible for watershed resto-ration writ large.

Just such a concrete problem-solving approach is also employed in Olanchito, Honduras. There the mu-nicipality, which operates the city’s water services, is

concerned about land use changes in the forested area from which Olanchito obtains their water. The municipali-ty co-founded a consortium called MACO, which includes the regional watershed asso-ciation, AJAASSPIB and the international NGO, Ecologic. Together they seek to en-sure the integrity of the city’s water supply by preserving a forested buffer in the up-per watershed and educating

Olanchito residents about land and water use. Funds are used for land purchase, community education and technical assistance to landowners.

Prospects for Potable Water–Or is Bottled Water the New Normal?

Watershed restoration in New York State was largely driven by the clean water requirements of New York City. The water utility, due to state and federal pres-sure to comply with clean water requirements and a desire to preserve its reputation and brand with cus-tomers, took measures to ensure high quality potable water. In Latin American cities, it is rare that consumers drink from the tap, tending to spend many times their water bill on bottled water. Over past decades, water quality has deteriorated and even in cases in which the water is declared potable, consumer confidence is low. Interestingly, as well as a cause for concern, is that many of the watershed restoration efforts explored in this conference did not have as their goal the provision of truly potable water — water that consumers could confidently drink from the tap. And yet, such a goal would no doubt encourage a broad citizen front to co-alesce — the public health and economic justice ad-vantages are enormous.


Enhancing Learning and Advocacy Across Watersheds

The learning exchange held at the Blue Mountain Cen-ter represents just a tiny fraction of learning exchang-es underway among watershed stewards around the world. Sharing problem-solving strategies across geographies — even in very different conditions — has proven to be a valuable learning and capacity- building tool.

Rossana Landa described the Cities and Watersheds Learning Community, facilitated by the Fondo Mexica-no para la Conservación y la Naturaleza (FMCN) among 11 cities and watershed sites throughout Mexico. The sites are tied together by their commitment to urban water supply and source protection and experimen-tation with integrated watershed management gover-nance, financing and training innovations. To broaden perspectives and skills, FMCN convenes the groups to learn from one another and from experts in the field, often in concert with the National Forestry Commis-sion (CONAFOR). The FMCN also offers technical as-sistance to start-up initiatives, such as the state of Ve-racruz’ Environmental Fund. Based on the assessment that Mexico’s watershed councils are largely ignored, FMCN is likewise playing an advocacy role, backing a new water law to give the councils greater authority.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) supports a similar learning network, albeit on a much broader scale and with a specialty in what are called water funds, a tool designed initially in the Andes to support upstream,

watershed investment.17 TNC has supported dozens of cities in starting dedicated funds to protect the wa-tersheds on which they depend. Alejandro Cavalache, TNC’s fund director currently works with Maria Isabel Gomez of EPM to design Medellin’s new water fund, described in greater detail below.

On a more modest scale and with a more rural tilt, the Association of Water Committees (AJAASSPIB) in Honduras operates a learning exchange among 27 ru-ral communities. Carlos Duarte spoke in depth about one such committee, el Manejo Ambiental Conjunto de Olanchito (MACO) or in English, Joint Environmen-tal Management in Olanchito that seeks clean urban drinking water by ensuring water flow from reforest-ed watersheds. The AJAASSPIB committees exchange knowledge and labor.

The Council of Canadians supports a different kind of learning and networking. Their specialty is support to resistance strategies in cases of large-scale threats to water systems and watersheds — whether it be a large dam, a mine or privatization of a water utility. Clau-dia Campero, the Council’s Latin America coordinator, described their global campaigning for international visibility and political leverage, which starts with sup-port to grassroots activists who may be persecuted for their watershed protection efforts. The Council helps community groups strengthen advocacy skills. At the same time, together with OSE and FFOSE, the Council supports public-public partnerships, in part through the UN’s Water Operators Program.18

As may be evident from this de-scription, the “Urban Water Util-ities and Upstream Communities Working Together” conference was an eclectic gathering of small and large water operators, public authorities, and NGO’s. The con-ference, as a learning exchange, no doubt created challenges for itself by mixing apples and orang-es in the same bowl. At the same time, participants remarked that it is through this diversity of ex-perience and organizational types that water will be managed as a shared commons.

Urban Water Utilities and Upstream Communities Working Together � Financial Support �

IV. Financial Support Mechanisms

A diversity of financial support mechanisms were ex-plored at the conference.

State-administered Payment for Environmental Services (PES)19 Programs

Joaquin Saldaña of CONAFOR described three types of PES programs in Mexico–a centrally-administered Na-tional Program of Payments for Ecosystem Services, a matching grant program called Fondos Concurrentes (with 50% provided by the local partner, be it local government or civil society partner organizations), and the Biodiversity Endowment Fund. Reforestation and forest conservation advances are tracked through sat-ellite images and field visits.

CONAFOR created these programs as an economic in-centive scheme for the owners of forestlands where ecosystem services originate. The programs are volun-tary, based on mutual agreement between participat-ing parties. Under these arrangements, ecosystem ser-vices users (cities, water utilities, businesses, etc.) pay

to receive them, while providers (forestland owners) adopt measures to maintain or enhance the ecosys-tem services in exchange for compensation.

CONAFOR is a Latin American leader in these pro-grams, the majority of which are paid to providers of hydrologic ecosystem services. Between 2003 and 2011, CONAFOR allocated $520 million for the im-plementation of 5,085 conservation projects covering over 3 million hectares.

The matching funds program is the only one of its kind in Latin American in which the federal govern-ment promotes, in all 31 states, the establishment and strengthening of local PES mechanisms. The program is designed with sustainability in mind; the idea is to encourage local environmental services users, includ-ing water utility operators, to initiate contractual rela-tions with environmental service providers, and devel-op sources of local financing. Each year, together with FMCN’s Cities and Watersheds program, CONAFOR convenes the recipients of the funds–all local actors–in


a learning exchange to share best practices. In 2013, representatives from similar international programs were invited to share their advances and challenges.

Francisco Tzul spoke of Guatemala’s PINFOR program, which is administered by the National Forest Institute (INAB). The program provides funding to landown-ers, including municipalities that carry out reforesta-tion and forest stewardship programs. Interestingly, the program is not perceived as a good fit with the 48 Cantones model of watershed stewardship. That model relies on centuries of traditional Mayan forest management and community volunteerism. The 48 Cantones have chosen not to participate in PINFOR programs because local participation in conservation activities is already robust and community leaders fear monetizing and commodifying water and labor. They are concerned that a payment program may erode the Mayan cosmovision that connects them to water and the spirit of community volunteerism needed to stew-ard their water sources.

The Public Trust of the Veracruz Environmental Fund is a parastatal managed by the Veracruz state govern-ment in Mexico. To benefit both water producers and consumers, it supports water treatment, conservation and overall watershed management, financing proj-ects from which both parties benefit. The Fund makes available 5.8 million pesos for environmental services in the Huazunlan-Texizapan watershed, benefiting the

indigenous population of Poplu-cas y Nahuatls and recuperation of springs and river banks.

Watershed Stewardship Training and Support

Financial support is often supple-mented with training or other com-plementary strategies. The group explored numerous examples of ca-pacity-building in watershed stew-ardship, offered by both public and private agencies. Examples include INSO’s (Oaxaca) permaculture train-ing center in Pedregal, technical as-sistance offered by forestry staff to partners in CONAFOR’s Fondos Con-currentes program, a Food Security and Watersheds program in Totoní-

capán, Guatemala, and the Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación y Naturaleza’s (FMCN) advocacy for em-powered local watershed councils.

Watershed Funds

Watershed funds take a variety of forms, from Veracruz’ Environmental Fund operated by that state’s Ministry of the Environment to an NGO-managed fund such as Profauna’s efforts in Saltillo, Mexico to inter-municipal consortiums in Central America, Brazil and Ecuador. Funds were typologized in the following way:

Pooled Intermunicipal FundsAlong the shared border of Honduras, Guatema-la, and El Salvador, municipalities are experimenting with inter-municipal funds for watershed conservation through the Mancomunidad Trinacional. In the region around Loja, Ecuador, FORAGUA brings together near-ly a dozen municipalities and seeks to integrate 39 more. In Brazil, IBIO convenes municipalities along the Doce River in a watershed council that provides grants for watershed improvements. The boards of directors for these non-profit corporations include mayors and oversee watershed improvements such as reforesta-tion, land conservation and sewage treatment.

Municipal FundsIn the small Honduran city of Olanchito, the munici-pal government, in collaboration with a consortium of


watershed councils, AJJAASPIB and the international NGO, Ecologic, created MACO. Carlos Duarte, the pro-gram’s coordinator, described how the Uchapa and Pimienta sub-watersheds are stewarded by MACO through land purchases, community policing and en-vironmental awareness work with school children. State Agency-led FundCaridad Gonzalez spoke to conference participants about Veracruz’ new Environmental Fund (FAV) which will support a range of environmental improvements, from habitat protection to reforestation. Veracruz is a hugely biodverse state, from coastal plains to 5000 meter peaks; 33% of Mexico’s runoff passes through its 14 watersheds. The FAV is overseen by the State Envi-ronmental Secretary and coordinates closely with fed-eral agencies such as CONAFOR and municipally, with water operators. The principal source of income for FAV is 1% of consumers’ water bills. Other sources are environmental charges for timbering and land clearing. State support for this initiative means that it may be able to count on a long-term funding stream and col-laboration of various state agencies. In the near future, it will receive 60% of the automobile smog test fees.

Utility-led FundQuito’s water utility, EPMAPS, and Medellin’s utility, EPM, are just some of many public utilities that have established, or are moving towards establishing, wa-

tershed funds. The EPM in Medellin is in the planning and development phase for its water fund. In their case, they are developing three different strategies for three watersheds facing diverse pressures — housing development, agrotoxins, and mining pollution re-spectively. EPM is establishing a Water Fund Corpo-ration, through which it will bring together, under one roof, dispersed watershed efforts. Their revenue plans include making use of a legislative stipulation through which municipalities can destine 1% of their budget to environmental payment services and land purchases. EPMAPS was the lead donor in setting up FONAG, a $10 million-plus fund whose mission is to improve the quality of the city’s water supply through up-stream investments. FONAG is a non-profit entity on whose board EPMAPS sits. They hold a 51% interest in FONAG. In addition to FONAG’s watershed invest-ments, EPMAPS makes investments from its own bud-get, which in volume, surpass those of FONAG. The two funding streams are used for different and com-plementary purposes. Both Medellin and Quito have worked with The Nature Conservancy for technical as-sistance and initial funding.

NGO-led fundsA promising example of NGO-led funds is that of Pro-fauna in Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico. With the support of the FMCN, Profauna seeks to conserve and restore


the ecological integrity of the mountains of Zapali-name, which provides water to the downstream city of Saltillo. Profauna collects funds through voluntary contributions that water users may attach to their wa-ter payments. To date more than 46,000 families from Saltillo contribute to this scheme and the State and Municipal governments have also joined this effort with a counterpart contribution. These funds are ap-plied to investments in Zapaliname; the selection of projects is guided by a Management Plan implement-ed by Profauna in coordination with the rural commu-nities. It is supervised by a Steering Committee, which ensures transparency and accountability to citizens. Although in research for USAID, Joaquin Saldaña from CONAFOR generally found limited consumer support for voluntary watershed conservation payments, the Saltillo fund has thus far enjoyed public support.

Direct Water Utility Upstream Investments

Many water utilities make upstream investments in a quieter way than a dedicated fund, simply as part of their ongoing water quality programs. SEDAPAL (Lima) and OSE (Montevideo) have not created independent water funds, but have made upstream investments from their operating budgets.21 Relative to a stand-alone fund, this model has its advantages and disad-vantages. On the one hand, since the upstream invest-ments may not be visible to the public — depending on the utility’s level of transparency — the utility may be less accountable for these upstream investments. On the other hand, if the utility has the political will and

technical know-how, it can use its own funds — wheth-er from revenues or loans — for upstream investments. Of course a risk is that in the face of other pressing priorities, the utility does not make the investments at all. A second risk is that if the utility does not have a community oversight board, key stakeholders in the watershed may be excluded.22

In spite of these risks, Al Appleton sees this option — utilities incorporating upstream work into their oper-ating budgets — as not only viable, but desirable and efficient. If utilities can treat watershed investments as normal and essential costs, it becomes an expected public service for which they are held accountable by customers. Not only water, but watersheds as well, are then managed as a commons for the public good.

Fund Governance: Trust Funds

It is standard procedure for a business to shift funds from one budget line item to another. It can, however, be a deadly dynamic for a util-ity’s watershed conservation initiatives, which are almost always considered lower priority than other budget items.

A mechanism that has met with some suc-cess is trust funds, monies used for restrict-ed purposes as approved by an independent board. Ideally, sitting on this board are mu-nicipal governments, environmental agencies, the water utility and citizen groups that joint-ly ensure that funds are spent for approved watershed stewardship activities. This kind of independent trust fund may make the fund

more attractive to outside investors and may dissuade the misuse of funds for political interests. Of course a public utility that is transparent to its customers via public reporting requirements and hearings may al-ready enjoy the same level of public trust.

Making Effective Watershed Investments

Investment needs will almost certainly outpace re-sources. Whether funds originate from a trust fund or utility or municipal budget, it is essential to know where the funds will do the most good — and what precautions need to be in place so they do no harm. Of course, every watershed is distinct and interven-tions, therefore, must respond to local political and ecological conditions.


In the more straightforward cases, sensitive proper-ties might be purchased and converted to conserva-tion land. EPMAPS, for example, recently purchased a.12,000 hectare páramo that had been degraded by over-grazing. Land purchase for conservation is a common way to protect watersheds and may be pre-ferred over incentivizing landowners to change land use practices. FORAGUA, for example, reports that once trees mature during a conservation period — agreed to with a land owner — that same land owner may no longer accept restrictions and seek to harvest the trees. FORAGUA manages 48,000 hectares of con-servation land, governed by municipal ordinances. The land is purchased and in cases in which the munici-palities don’t have sufficient funds, they design com-pensation plans. At the same time, it is no secret that it can be challenging to police conservation land and resolve conflicts with local communities that count on the conserved land’s resources.

Needless to say, effective watershed protection must reach further than forest conservation and refor-estation. Forests should not be misconstrued as wa-ter factories — over-reliance on them to correct wa-ter problems may prove disappointing. This is not to understate the enormous value of agroecology and sustainable forestry in a watershed — fundamental for producing and storing good quality water, restoring fisheries, diminishing flooding, and supplying forest

products, just to name a few. But sound watershed management must be nested within an overall rural sustainability plan, which in turn rests upon an eco-nomic plan providing dividends to the natural envi-ronment, rural communities and cities all dependent on the watershed. That plan for economic sustainabil-ity may include agriculture, tourism, timber products, sewage treatment, and even mining — as consistent with negotiated ecological standards.

It may also be that there is simply no forest to invest in. Such is the case in the watershed above Lima — a high and arid plateau. How to increase water volume there is not obvious and improving the water quality of mine effluents cannot be resolved through reforestation. A PES program designed around reforestation or paying mining operations not to pollute, explained Yolanda Andia of SEDAPAL, may not have the desired impact and would not be an easy political sell — the mines are not really providing an environmental service. So in this case, traditional PES investments may not be the best course of action, a higher priority for water-shed protection might be training muncipalities and the Ministry of Energy and Mines to work with miners on sustainable practices, strengthening citizen water-shed watchdogs committees and environmental po-licing agencies — perhaps unusual investments for wa-tershed restoration.


Ranking priority uses of water is also helpful to guide investments. In Ecuador, with the right to water and rights of nature enshrined in the constitution, the State developed a hierarchy of water uses — human consumption, food sovereignty and water for nature are the top three. Such a hierarchy could mean, for example, that instead of investing in modernized irri-gation for export crops, resources might be oriented to help small farmers with low water use irrigation for traditional crops.23

Do No Harm — and Avoid Costly Mistakes Juan Jose Consejo from INSO made a provocative as-sertion to conference participants: It is not that there is a lack of money to invest in conservation and re-generation of watersheds, but rather that those funds are often spent in ways that they shouldn’t be, and without adequate efficiency and transparency. He posed the example of a dam project intended to re-solve an alleged problem of water scarcity for the growing city of Oaxaca. In the face of considerable opposition, the Paso Ancho dam will bring water to Oaxaca from over 100 kilometers away at the cost of $450 million. At the same time, INSO estimates that for $300 million, a program could be created to work with local communities in the watershed on natural infrastructure and stewardship techniques to resolve water limitations and quality while boosting rural live-

lihoods. The Oaxacan government has authorized the $450 million; the funds are there. From INSO’s perspective, the problem is that the money is mis-allocated towards a dam, which has a higher price tag, promulgates a myth of water scar-city and the need for an expensive technological solution that can be easily mismanaged.

For INSO, this is a misdiagnosis and missed opportunity for a ho-listic solution. Their rule of thumb for watershed investment is to de-ploy resources that restore the hy-dro-social cycle and acheive more with fewer resources. The pro-posed dam disrupts rather than supports that cycle. Water funds and other financial mechanisms ought to avoid unnecessary infra-

structure solutions when a sustainable hydro-social cycle can be restored without them. The strategy ac-cording to INSO, should be to restore the water cy-cle at all stages — precipitation, filtration, evaporation, etc. In Oaxaca, current average precipitation is ade-quate. The problem is that due to human activity, runoff is large and filtration is low. There’s been a loss of balance between elements of the cycle. Interventions should be directed then to restoring all parts of the cycle to proper functioning, including the social fabric that stewards the cycle.

The Oaxacan example affirms the essential premise of sustainability: working with the environment rather than against it is cheaper, more profitable and ought to guide watershed investments. In the long run as water becomes more scarce and humans bump up against other natural limits — there will be a lack of money for traditionally engineered solutions like the Paso Ancho dam that look to fight nature, use it as a waste dump, or externalize the costs of environmental abuse. Solu-tions that work with natural capital, and with the social capital of the countryside, will increasingly be appreci-ated for the ways in which they can unlock resources, as they did and do for New York City. The wealth of nature to save both nature itself and the social land-scape that depends on it, must be part of the new par-adigm, the exit ramp from business as usual.

Urban Water Utilities and Upstream Communities Working Together � Conclusions & Recommendations �

V. Conclusions and Recommendations

It’s a daunting time for water management, but also ripe with opportunities. With water use on the rise and hydrological cycles increasingly unpredictable, stew-arding our water sources has become more complex. Progress on Millenium Development Goals (MDG) goals is painfully slow; the number of families without clean water and sanitation is an unconscionable fail-ure of development. Vying for economic growth and shrunken public services, some governments give ex-tractive industries free rein to pollute watersheds just as they privatize municipal water systems. At our peril, we persist in robbing water from the ecosystems that give us life.

At the same time, there is cause for cautious optimism. Rights to water and sanitation were passed at the UN in 2009 and the human rights and conservation com-munities are forging stronger working relationships, albeit too slowly. The very concept of “watershed” is gaining traction worldwide, pointing to the possibil-ities of integrated land and water planning that em-braces territories and bioregions. From water utilities to bottling companies, more organizations are looking

upstream — some with an eye towards monopolizing supply — to protect water sources. Big infrastructure — dams and the like — are questioned as hydro-social systems that “work with nature” — restoring natural flows — are gaining public acceptance. Cities increas-ingly recognize and even embrace their dependence on their rural neighbors — witness the explosion of ur-ban farmers markets. Emerging is a variety of policies and programs in the area of compensation for ecolog-ical services — some positive and some perverse — to promote shared water stewardship goals. It’s a time of tremendous learning and experimentation.

To further that learning, we offer the following recom-mendations:

1. Public water utilities can and should play a lead role in watershed stewardship. Their expertise, public ac-countability requirements — where they exist — and re-sources — including an engaged workforce — can help ensure that watershed management remains a public responsibility and that private watershed protection efforts are well-coordinated under a public umbrella.


2. Watersheds, and not just water itself, should prop-erly be considered a commons. This is not a rhetorical flourish or a back door argument for expropriation but rather encourages a joint land use and water-planning framework to negotiate with private owners and users of shared land and water resources.

3. The time and effort to create and maintain an au-thentically participatory watershed governance struc-ture is an essential investment for effective watershed managment. At the same time, multi-stakeholder bod-ies may be characterized by many meetings and few actions, side-stepping controversial issues such as in-dustrial pollution. Faciltation by neutral parties and co-alescing around a narrow clean water agenda are just some ways to improve governance and management.

4. Watershed protection investments ought to in-clude traditional investments, e.g., reforestation, as well as non-traditional investments, such as support to upstream watershed stewardship organizations or strengthening public environmental policing. Sanita-tion investments in watersheds are essential and fre-quently overlooked.

5. The growth of multi-party water funds as a water-shed recovery tool is a positive development. Howev-er, this strategy should be closely tied to water utilities’ independent upstream investments. .

6. Payment for environmental services programs can be effective watershed protection tools but must take measures to avoid political manipulation and extortion.

7. A “do no harm” approach to watershed protection means that engineering solutions that work against nature, such as large dams, should be approached cautiously. Investments should be encouraged that restore a healthy “hydro-social” cycle, one which pro-tects working landscapes, rights of its residents and ecological realities. This requires adhering to a long-term, sustainable economic development plan, rec-ognizing urban and rural areas’ distinct interests and interdependence, without urban bias.

8. Effective watershed recovery requires strong public institutions to curb domestic, industrial and agricultur-al pollution. A transition to agroecology and agrofor-estry practices in the watershed is essential, but fruit-less without stopping pollution points, including from untreated sewage.

9. Stronger laws giving local watershed councils greater decentralized authority are critical just as their coordination with public agencies is essential. Ideal-ly, the national and state government should marshal resources and regulate the implementation of water-shed stewardship plans; but these ought to be carried out by local actors, following principles of subsidiarity.

10. The learning curve to expand water utilities’ role in watershed stewardship and to encourage their col-laboration with public agencies, civil society and busi-nesses is a steep one. To guarantee safe drinking water and sustainable watersheds, development banks and other funders should support learning and participa-tory research.

11. A rights framework should undergird watershed protection, implying four com-mitments: a) As ruled by the UN, everyone should enjoy rights to water and sanitation without discrimination. Access to these rights should be an explicit goal of water-shed protection, especially in rural areas; b) Watershed management should satisfy nature’s basic ecological needs — whether or not the rights of nature have been for-mally recognized in a legal or constitutional framework; c) Rural communities should re-tain rights to livelihoods in watersheds and provided with legalized land titles and other incentives to use the landscape’s natural re-sources sustainably; d) A hierarchy of water


uses should be established, as in Ecuador, serving as a planning tool and value statement prioritizing water and watershed uses.

12. Watershed restoration and access to potable wa-ter can best be achieved in coordinated fashion. The two are too frequently separated. In Latin American cities, consumers rarely drink from the tap, spending large sums on bottled water. The goal of providing high quality water drove NYC’s interest in watershed protection. Through this twin agenda in Latin America, a powerful citizen front can coalesce around environ-mental protection, public health and economic justice. Campaigns to implement the human right to water and sanitation would likely grow by building alliances with watershed conservationists.

13. Transformative education, that goes many steps further than water conservation campaigns can help water consumers re-imagine their relationship to water and the upstream communities that steward it. This ed-ucation may encourage a new water citizen to advocate to discard obsolete water management practices and invest in a functioning hydro-social cycle.

14. We are in the midst of an exciting period of technological experimentation through innovations in storm water management, matching water quality to intended use, and expanding water systems in modular fash-ion, just to name a few. These technologies can reduce pressures on watersheds but will yield more robust results when comple-mented by changes in how society governs and manages water.

Too frequently, cities look upon rural areas simply as factories of food, water, minerals other extractives and bucolic landscapes for tourism. At times colonial in posture, cities often miss the texture and needs of the rural communities that provide for their sus-tenance and enjoyment. As water security rises in importance at the highest policy echelons, there is a fork in the road. One road paves the countryside, channels the runoff into a funnel, pumping it through city taps. The other takes a more reciprocal, co-man-agement approach, supporting rural communities in pursuing their livelihoods to undergird sustainable watershed stewardship.

In recent years, the field of watershed management has evolved considerably. With their self-interest in affordable clean water, water operators can play a leadership role in forging the politically charged, ru-ral-urban divide into a relational link. Although ripe with risk, this work is essential. Without an equitable connection between cities and watersheds, our water security is sure to remain elusive.

Endnotes and Photo Credits

1 Urban areas generally have the upper hand in state politics over their rural counterparts. NY is no exception. Past relations had been marked by power imbalances, strained relationships and land expropriation. The negotiation process was delicate. After learning of the NYC Water system’s original proposals, one farmer leader calculated and gave wide publicity to his conclusion that the program would impose crippling regulation on 45% of his farmland. Appleton met with him first and subsequently 700 area farmers in a public meeting at a high school. Over time they learned to work together.

2 Nationally, the U.S. Department of Agriculture took note of the program. The idea that you can’t save the rural environment without saving the rural economy made sense to them. The USDA offers numerous conservation incentives to US farmers. In the US and throughout the world, urbanites put pressure on rural areas to provide large quantities of cheap food through industrialized food production The pressure comes back to bite in compromised water quality from poor soil stewardship and overuse of chemical inputs.

3 Conference participants also commented that it is important to speak scientifically about the relative weight of pollution sources. There should be little comparison between say, cyanide stream poisoning and poor management of cattle excrement. Ironically, more attention is often paid to the latter; farmers may be easier targets.

4 Ms. Thapa also participates in the Source Water Collaborative, which unites 25 national organizations to protect water sources in the U.S. http://www.sourcewatercollaborative.org/

5 Conference participants were interested to learn about the Safe Drinking Water Act’s requirement to assess the vulnerability of every public water system – and to communicate those vulnerabilities to the public. This has led many utilities in NY to develop a multiple barriers approach to safeguarding the water system. Were those kinds of requirements in place in Latin American water systems, participants felt it might generate public pressure to safeguard drinking water supplies.

6 As part of encouraging this institutional shift, in Tamil Nadu, India, the CHANGE program trains public sector water engineers to work more closely with the communities they serve and to seek local knowledge and participation.

7 In an interview, Philadelphia Water Commissioner, Howard Neukrug, , commented that it is unfair to ask poor urban residents to pay for improvements on upstream farms. Relative to their incomes, water expenses are already high.

8 There are advocacy efforts underway to enshrine the rights of nature enshrined in a UN declaration.9 EPMAPS is not the water authority but a public enterprise, subject to public oversight and regulation.10 Even in the U.S., improvements in rural water services tends to be left out of the equation in most watershed planning, though in

NYC, as part of their watershed cleanup program, they engaged in a major effort of upgraded local sewage treatment upgrading and fixing repaired local septic systems. In watershed improvement programs in the developing world, where health standards are often not upheld, rural communities’ access to water and sanitation could but generally isn’t, used as a key selling point. Moreover, as these are areas in which the municipal water utility has some obvious expertise, design of cost effective ways to deliver rural services could be achieved through partnership.

11 The Rights and Resources Initiative is a global coalition to advance forest tenure, policy and market reforms. www.rightsandre-sources.org/

12 This is not to say that positive actions do not occasionally occur. During the past year, a mine was temporarily shut when results from a surprise water quality inspection were distributed to the press.

13 http://plancomunparaunbiencomun.wordpress.com/author/plancomunparaunbiencomun/14 When Mr. Appleton was asked what he might do with $10 million to invest in the watershed, he suggested creating a special local

food market for growers in the watershed to sell their sustainably-produced products in NYC, thus solidifying the ties between city and country dwellers. In addition to the obvious economic benefit for farmers in the watershed, such a program might encourage advocacy actions on the part of the urban customers to defend the health of their watershed.

15 The Plan Trifinio is one source of support. It is an anti-poverty, pro-Central America integration program begun in the late 90s with support of the InterAmerican Development Bank. The Plan Trifinio supports some municipal works but is more focused on educa-tion and training and national level inter-ministerial collaboration. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environ-ment/water/ihp/ihp-programmes/pccp/publications/case-studies/summary-the-case-of-the-trifinio-plan/

16 The federated municipalities have thus far collected nearly $100,000 in contributions from their own budgets. While a large sum for them, it falls far short of what is needed to restore the watershed. Political pressures are intense for the mayors to show their constituents that such an extraordinary budget allocation is relevant to their daily lives. The MT is actively seeking contributions to match and support the municipalities’ investments.

17 http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/pubs/TNC_Water_Funds_Report.pdf18 www.gwopa.org19 Conference participants and even CONAFOR officials prefer the term compensation for ecological services over payments for envi-

ronmental services to show the variety of possibilities beyond direct payments. For historical reasons, payments for environmental services persists.

Urban Water Utilities and Upstream Communities Working Together � Endnotes and Photos �

Urban Water Utilities and Upstream Communities Working Together � Endnotes and Photos �

20 Civil society organizations implement 66% of the Fondo Concurrente’s local, matching funds projects.21 As mentioned, in Lima, an NGO-led fund, Aquafondo, is building its capital base. Aquafondo and SEDAPAL are in discussion about

how best to work together. http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/southamerica/peru/explore/aquafondo-the-water-fund-for-lima.xml

22 In some cases, it is this very lack of transparency that spurred the formation of independent water funds in the first place.23 74% of water drawn from the Guayllabamba watershed near Quito is for irrigation purposes at the same time as the utility is

reaching further and further away to bring water to the growing Quito population. Thus far, little has been done to diminish water demand for irrigation, but it is a growing need as costs rise to transport water from less tapped and compromised sources. For now, EPMAPS invests in land purchases in water producing areas to ensure source quality and productivity, purchasing only from large landowners so as not to incentivize small farm sell-offs.

Photos:Page 1 commons.wikimedia.org Page 2 radioespectaculo.com Page 3 commons.wikipedia.comPage 4 sciblogs.co.nz Page 5 commons.wikipedia.comPage 6 FORAGUAPage 7 en.wikipedia.orgPage 8 www.nycwatershed.orgPage 9 SEDAPALPage 10 Forest TrendsPage 11 www.actionforglobalhealth.euPage 12 www.hydroprojekt.com.plPage 13 commons.wikimedia.orgPage 14 commons.wikimedia.org Page 16 commons.wikimedia.orgPage 17 commons.wikimedia.orgPage 18 Fondo Ambiental de VeracruzPage 19 commons.wikimedia.orgPage 20 macaulay.cuny.eduPage 21 EPMAPSPage 22 www.worldpulse.orgPage 23 commons.wikimedia.orgPage 24 MACOPage 25 commons.wikimedia.orgPage 28 www.water.orgPage 29 commons.wikimedia.orgPage 30 commons.wikimedia.orgPage 31 commons.wikimedia.org

Urban Water Utilities and Upstream Communities Working Together � Annex �

VI. Annex

A. Acknowledgements and Contributors

This report is based on intensive discussions among the participants of the conference, “Urban Water Util-ities and Upstream Communities Working Together”. All content is, however, the sole responsibility of the author, Daniel Moss. Those who generated the ideas explored in this pa-per and offered critical editorial support are: Joaquín Saldaña, Rossana Landa, Juan Jose Consejo, Caridad Gonzalez Claudia Campero, Hector Aguirre, Francisco Tzul, Carlos Duarte, Angel Lara, Juan Carlos Romero, Francisco Gordillo, Daoiz Uriarte, Lourdes Martinez, Yolanda Andia Cardenas, Maria Isabel Gomez Ochoa, Alejandro Cavalache, Carlos Brasileiro, Albert Apple-ton, Kala Vairavamoorthy, and Jane Thapa. I am in-debted to this visionary, hard-working group.

I am deeply grateful for the Spanish translation work of Roberto Ponce Lopez and Azucena Rojas Parra and to Tara Mathur for design and layout. This paper would not have been possible without the generous support and encouragement of Harriet Bar-low, Sheila and Isaac Heimbinder, the Blue Mountain Center and my wife, Tyler Haaren. Reprinting and recirculation is encouraged; cita-tion would be greatly appreciated. This report can be downloaded at no cost in English and Spanish at www.ourwatercommons.org. Questions, comments and suggestions can be directed to [email protected].


B. Participant list

Mexico• JoaquínSaldaña,CONAFOR• RossanaLanda,CuencasyCiudades, Fondo Mexicano Para La Naturaleza y la Conser-vación• Juan Jose Consejo y Laura López, Instituto de la Naturaleza y la Sociedad de Oaxaca (INSO) y el Foro Oaxaqueño del Agua (FOA)• Caridad Gonzalez, Coordinadora del Fondo Ambiental, Estado de Veracruz • ClaudiaCampero,BluePlanetProject El Salvador• HectorAguirre,MancomunidadTrinacional

Guatemala• FranciscoTzul,48CantonesdeTotonícapan

Honduras• CarlosDuarte,MunicipiodeOlanchito• AngelLara,AlcaldedeSensenti

Ecuador• JuanCarlosRomero,EPMAPS• FranciscoGordilloyLuciaPlacencia,FORAGUA

Uruguay• DaoizUriarte,OSE• LourdesMartinez,FFOSE

Peru• YolandaAndiaCardenas,SEDAPAL

Colombia• MariaIsabelGomezOchoa,EPM• AlejandroCavalache,TheNatureConservancy

Brazil• CarlosBrasileiro,IBIO,AGBDoce

United States• Albert Appleton, Former New York City Commissioner of Environmental Protection and Director of the New York City Water and Sewer System (NYC Water)• Professor Kala Vairavamoorthy, University of South Florida• Jane Thapa, New York City Department of Public Health and member of the Source Water Collaborative• DanielMoss,Director,OurWaterCommons• RobertoPonce,MIT

C. Profiles of Some of the Participating Organizations

The Mancomunidad Trinacional is a federation of municipalities along the Guatelamalan, Honduran and Sal-vadoran borders in the Trinfinio region. It formed in the ab-sence of an integrated, participatory cross-border develop-ment strategy to face the many development challenges of the region. Through the public policy, Forests Forever, the Mancomunidad Trinancional a) Uses incentives to reduce

the loss of forest cover and perpetuates the functioning of forest ecosystems. b) Promotes the sustainable manage-ment of protected areas and the connectivity among them. Through the Shared Waters public policy, the Mancomu-nidad Trinacional seeks to improve integrated, sustainable and shared water resources management. This is achieved through regional planning, inter-municipal cooperation in


provision of water services and basic sanitation, improving access to potable water in sufficient quantity and quality, reducing the regional contamination of water sources, and by implementing a tri-national system of compensation for ecosystem services. http://www.trinacionalriolempa.org/

The Cities and Watersheds Program (PCyC) of the Mexi-can Fund for Conservation of Nature is based on an incu-bator model to accelerate projects that protect and restore the watersheds that supply water to 10 cities in Mexico. It is a project of national scope to encourage a transition from management of natural resources dispersed across sectors to a model of integrated watershed management. The PCyC uses a model of long-term support that brings togeth-er resources, knowledge and technical capacities, through dialogue, to promote the integrated management of wa-tersheds via the in-formed participation of all sectors of soci-ety. The model seeks to introduce a wa-tershed perspective, the coordination of actors based on com-mon objectives and the development of co-responsibility be-tween the cities and the watersheds that supply them with wa-ter. http://fmcn.org/cuencas-y-ciudades/

Since 2009, political will and a spirit of solidarity has existed between large and small municipalities in southern Ecuador. It has allowed for the creation of the Regional Water Fund, FORAGUA, which seeks to slowly integrate 39 municipal-ities of that region. Using municipal regulations, 48,000 hectares have been declared municipal reserves. 50,000 users now contribute an environmental fee, which is ad-ministered by legal representatives of the National Finance Corporation and the Technical Secretary, which oversees and manages complementary funds for water sources in-vestments. Through FORAGUA, the technical departments of the municipalities have secure resources and technical support, resulting in a certain amount of agility in conserva-tion processes. http://www.foragua.org/

The Oaxacan Institute for Nature and Society (INSO) was formed in 1991 to support collaborative and autonomous

efforts for natural conservation and social well-being. Our principal project, Aguaxaca began in 2003 among commu-nities, civil and social organizations and government agen-cies. It is a holistic and collaborative strategy to conserve the natural processes that guarantee water in Oaxaca’s Central Valley and improve the life of its inhabitants. We have 5 strategies: The Photo (research), the Table (seeking consensus and financial mechanisms — environmental ser-vices), the Plan, the Tools (regeneration actions and alterna-tive technologies) and the Voice (dissemination and aware-ness raising). We now have a firm hydrological, ecological and social understanding of the watershed. We created the Oaxaca Water Forum, with 80 members, as a place to seek consensus, define water policies and put them into practice. Among our actions, we have to reforested and conserved soil and ravines, and introduced permaculture, water im-

provement and treat-ment techniques, energy conservation and efficient irriga-tion. Lastly, we have disseminated news about the project and carried out various actions of awareness raising and education. http://insoaxaca.wordpress.com/

The Municipality of Olanchito (MACO) agreement began as an initiative of the muncipality of Olanchito, Honduras, based on the experi-ence of small commu-nities that have come together in an asso-

ciation to administer and protect micro-watersheds. They work with an environmental fund established for that pur-pose and have built management capacity with support from the Ecologic Development Fund. MACO brings water users and landowners into a dialogue to pursue the following pri-orities: upstream land purchase and downstream awareness raising about water use to guarantee a water source of suf-ficient quality and quantity for the city of Olanchito and the community of Agalteca. http://www.ecologic.org/our-team/partners/local-partners/#anchor5

The Metropolitan Public Company for Potable Water and Sanitation (EPMAPS) of Quito, Ecuador delivers Qui-to’s drinking water and treats its sewage. EMPAPS is con-scious of the need to reach agreements with different water

lic health, energy, global security, and social equity. This interdisciplinary approach provides a fertile foundation for the development of unique solutions to emerging and ex-isting problems. The Patel Center for Global Solutions pro-vides cutting-edge research and emphasizes developing appropriate transfer mechanisms so that it can be applied on the ground. Focus areas include challenges surrounding the development of resilient, livable, and healthy cities of the future, particularly in the developing world. Research generated at the School is key to the development of the global sustainable cities agenda. http://sgs.usf.edu/

Since 1952, the Public Sanitary Works (OSE) has been the state agency respon-sible for water supply throughout Uruguay. Public health is the highest priority — so-cial order comes be-fore economic con-cerns. Through the 2004 constitutional reform, Uruguay be-came the first country to declare a funda-mental human right to safe water and san-itation and mandated that these services be provided by the state. OSE constantly fac-es new challenges to improve the services it provides, prioritiz-ing the welfare of the entire community. www.ose.com.uy/

The Matching Funds program (Fondos Concurrentes) seeks to bring togeth-er resources from CONAFOR (Mexico’s National Forestry

Agency) and the users of environmental services to offer a payment or compensation to landowners and users of forest land who carry out sustainable forest management which permits and improves environmental services. With-in this framework, CONAFOR can provide up to half of the money for between 5 and 15 years to create or strength-en a local payment for environmental services mechanism. Funds can be applied to: 1) Watershed and sub watersheds; 2) Biological corridors; and, 3) Important areas for conserva-tion. http://www.conafor.gob.mx/


users in the watershed, maintain community relations, pur-chase and manage areas of hydrological significance and conduct research. Many of these activities are carried out through the Fund for the Protection of Water (FONAG), of which EPMAPS is the principal constituent and contributor. http://www.aguaquito.gob.ec/

The Public Trust Fund of the Environmental Fund of Ve-racruz (FAV) is a parastatal entity of the state government of Veracruz, Mexico. Its work is focused on watersheds, and supports projects of restoration, preservation and conser-vation of Veracruz’ ecosystems. The work includes pol-lution control, implementing climate change mitigation strategies, environ-mental planning, en-vironmental education and communication, and strengthening lo-cal capacities. http://www.veracruz.gob.mx/medioambiente/

State Sanitary Works (OSE) is the state agency responsible for water supply through-out the Oriental Re-public of Uruguay, and sanitation services within the country since 1952, creating law SBI states that their tasks must be performed with an ori-entation primarily hy-gienic putting in front the social reasons to economic. Moreover, through the reform of the Constitution of 2004, Uruguay became the first country to de-clare a fundamental human right access to safe water and sanita-tion. Similarly, it was provided that these services are pro-vided exclusively by the state. For these reasons is that SBI constantly faces new challenges to provide solutions that will improve the services it provides, prioritizing the welfare of the community.

The Patel Center for Global Solutions develops research that creates solutions for sustainability development in a rapidly-changing world. Its research is based upon USF’s broad, interdisciplinary expertise in the areas of water, pub-


Municipalidad de Olanchito

The Federation of Workers of Public Sanitary Works (FFOSE) is the union of OSE workers. Its mission is to pro-tect the workers in all their moral and material struggles for better living conditions for all, worker unity, solidarity and actions for common objectives. We work with National Committee for Water and Life (CNDAV) towards the defense of the commons, including the defense of land as water and land are inseparable. We participate nationally in the PIT-CNT and internationally with Public Workers International. http://www.ffose.org.uy/

SEDAPAL is the public water utility for Lima and Callao whose mission is to improve the quality of life for the pop-ulations of these cities, through supply of potable water, collection, treatment and final disposal of sewage waters, providing for the re-use of water and preservation of the environment. http://www.sedapal.com.pe/inicio The mission of the natural resource council of the associa-tion of mayors of the 48 Cantons of Totonicapan is to care for, protect, and conserve of the natural resources and — in particular — the communal forest of the Totonicapan mu-nicipality. The 48 Cantons of Totonicapan is a traditional K’iche governance authority that has represented and served

local villages for approximately 800 years. The 48 Cantons co-manages the forest with the Guatemalan National Park Service (CONAP) and the municipal forestry office of Totoni-capan. For the K’iche’ Maya of Totonicapan, the forest is not only a vital source of freshwater, it is revered as the spiri-tual source of life and the foundation of their community. http://www.ecologic.org/our-team/partners/lo-cal-partners/#anchor9

IBIO-AGB Doce, the Institute Bio-Atlantic, is a non profit organization whose mission is to increase environmental quality and promote sustainable territorial management in the Rio Doce basin for economic development, social equi-ty and human well-being. IBIO-AGB works in the Brazilian states of Minas Gerais (through 6 watershed committees) and in Espirito Santo (through 3 watershed committees). IBIO-AGB Doce provides grants and technical support for upstream management of the Rio Doce watershed, includ-ing for sewage treatment infrastructure. The work is fi-nanced by fees to concessionaires. Goals and activities are defined in management contracts between IBIO-AGB Doce and the National Water Agency (ANA), as well as with the Mining Institute for Water Management (IGAM). http://www.riodoce.cbh.gov.br/

Water Conference Full Report 0

Documents

Transcript of Water Conference Full Report 0