IWA Webinar - Water Stewardship: Accelerating Transboundary Climate Adaptation

A very good afternoon and good evening to all the participants who have joined us today in the webinar titled what is stewardship accelerating transboundary climate adaptation. I'm Afia Siddiqui and let's move to the other slide. So brief housekeeping some brief housekeeping rules for the participants. This webinar will be recorded and made available on demand on the IWA Connect Plus platform for our members. The speakers are responsible for securing copyright permissions for any work that they are going to present today and the opinions, hypotheses, conclusions or recommendations contained in the presentations are the sole responsibility of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect IWA opinion. Next slide. So for the participants, we would like to inform that you can interact using the chat box for general introduction and other interactive activities and we would encourage all the participants to post their questions in the Q&A box provided. Due to time constraint, unfortunately, we won't be able to answer all the questions, but you know, we would try our best. Now without further ado, I would like to welcome Raman to take the webinar forward. Thank you. >> Thanks a lot, Afia. Hello and welcome everyone. Thanks for joining us today. In this webinar, we wish to explore how climate adaptation can be accelerated by the principles of water stewardship. The importance of climate adaptation can't be emphasized enough. And since climate impacts are felt primarily through water, be it acute scarcity or over supply, it is a focal point of our research and action. Our specialist group on sustainability in the water sector, the CEO Water Mandate and the Alliance for Water Stewardship. We share a common vision in promoting awareness on water as a connector for both climate impacts as well as adaptation. One of the biggest barriers to water-related adaptation is fragmented jurisdiction. River basins, watersheds, or catchments rarely lie within the artificial borders that outline administrative areas, be it within a nation or across borders. However, for any meaningful adaptation action, the health of the entire catchment must be taken into account. Another challenge we see now is that some of the water treaties between nations that have either collapsed or are going to expire soon. These arrangements had kept the peace since several decades. In this context, we wish to explore if the principles of water stewardship can show the way where collaboration is prioritized over ownership. The end goal for us in this webinar is to allow stakeholders on different administrative sides to reflect and think, and find ways to build resilience in their catchments, even if the political realities make it difficult. I now hand it over to Miriam Feilberg, who is the chair of this specialist group. Miriam also serves as the head of climate adaptation and planning at the Danish Water and Wastewater Association. Over to you, Miriam. >> Thank you so much, Ram, for this introduction. Um I will just start on a slightly personal note. Um I have been working as a consultant with a transboundary water management-related projects uh for like 10 years ago in the Caucasus region, in the Mekong region, and in Southern Africa. For the last 10 years, I've been working in Denmark on climate change adaptation, but I have actually found similar challenges, and I think this is probably the case all over the world. You have the upstream and downstream issues, you have the issues of who pays, who benefits, who decides, and so on. And it's actually my general experience that governance issues related to water management are more difficult to solve than the actual technical issues. So, this is what we will be discussing also today. We have for the discussion three representatives of three different organizations. And they have all experience within this field. This is First, Oliver Minke, who is founding advisor at the Global Advisory Alliance and also member of the IWA specialist group on sustainability in the water sector. We have Maheen Malik, who is water and policy coordinator at the Alliance for Water Stewardship. We have Claudia Schackschneider, who is a senior research specialist at Pacific Institute and also CEO of Water Mandate that will be introduced to you. And then, Rem Mana will meet her and she will use the session for us here today. And I think that we all agree that climate challenges are best handled at catchment level and with all the relevant stakeholders. But, how can we do that? That is one of the topics that we are going to discuss here today. And as Rem also said that we will also be discussing if the concept of water stewardship and looking into more more stewardship than management or ownership of water resources will actually enable better cooperation and more resilient water sector. So, this is what we will be discussing today. But, before we do that, we will start with a Okay, I will just go through the agenda. Yes. Afia has just introduced the housekeeping. I will just remind those who came later. Please write Q&A in the Q&A box and other comments in the chat box. Then we will soon proceed to the panel discussion. We have short interventions from all three panelists. Then we will proceed to a discussion between them and a Q&A session and then we will we will have after that live Q&A from the audience. But all through the webinar if you have questions and and comments to the speakers, please write it down and we will do our best to take all the questions as we go along. I will now hand over to the first introduction. It's from Oliver Manica from the Global Advisory Alliance and the also a member of the IWA specialist group on sustainability in the water sector. So over to you, Oliver. >> Hello everyone and thank you Miriam Remenafia for your kicking this very timely discussion off. Today I want to provide a little bit of a reflection of the work I've been doing over the last 15 16 years around water stewardship and but also in in the transboundary water scale. Can we get the first slide, please? So there I wanted to start with or I want to give you a quick overview. So I want to talk a little bit about the observations around scale, about the time horizons, the de-risking in relation to stakeholder engagement of projects and programs as well as what what's actually the right location to deal with and some of the observation I have been um experiencing over the last couple of years. So when we look at yeah the first the transboundary challenge and Miriam already mentioned that we not looking at we often hear transboundary and thinking about the big international transboundary aquifers where you have like a challenges geopolitical discussions on a I guess more diplomatic level that is going on. But then we also we can already start for example when we look at the very local scale. We look at the shared village aquifer where you have local members of the community are very close to each other, have personal immediate um uh conflicts. And there's not necessarily like a legal treaty and it's more about how the community comes together and has to deal with the mono water management and water sharing locally. Then when we look at the subnational scale and that's where I guess I've worked mostly when when I think about it traditional um um corporate water stewardship at a particular site. So you have like the frictions between like the states um uh different jurisdictions as different scale um within a river basin because often those different waters obviously don't interlink well. And I mean one of the elements here is to really work with the private sector beside the the local communities and the government bodies to think about the the supply chains of the local economy and how you can bypass some of the critical that um uh yeah comes comes along with the discussions around water stewardship in the transboundary water stewardship on that scale. And then as I already mentioned we have the international scale where things become much more complicated where you not directly necessarily face each other but you often choose like the diplo diplomacy to really think about yeah where can I find like a bankable uh project within a big programs and think about how to bring um huge amounts of uh money together to actually address a shared problem between um different nations. So, um this is kind of the scale on on the uh different scaling issues. So, the next slide, please. Uh sorry, it's already there. Sorry. Um so, the the next one is obviously we also have like different types of time frames because when we look at um uh the big international programs, um if we look at the um the climate funds, the um international development um finance institutions, um we often look at yeah, very large uh project um cycles in that regards. And when we obviously work with um uh on smaller scales, um with companies, um but also within communities, we have to find a way to kind of break down these large programs, uh um the those large visions into um smaller, short-term um yeah, easy wins, I would say, like one of the buzzwords, unfortunately, sorry. Um that can be used as a bankable project where we can work specifically with a company within their 1 or 3-year time frame, with a community in their community um development plans, to really make sure um that we get um the necessary buy-in um from the different stakeholders on the ground. And um one of the very important um options is here obviously that uh we always as the practitioner, we if we work for example with a company, um we always have to make sure what is the larger complex around um in that particular river basin to ensure that um we can stay aligned and provide the the relevant guidance um to those organizations that we work with. Um the next slide, please. Then, um I've mentioned already that the derisking um uh for different types of projects. And, um, I think that's where, like, the main idea of, um, what is stewardship is, um, coming in. So, we're not only looking environmental or governance, uh, issues within areas, but we have to think about how we, uh, um, yeah, bring in the social factor, how we include, and, um, get ownership of, uh, localized problems within to the communities within the regions where we want to, uh, solve particular problems. So, while there's a company that follows, for example, a certain agenda, we need to make sure that we, um, get the buy-in from the local communities, um, but also from, uh, local governments, um, from all the stakeholders that are relevant, um, in that, um, place, um, to to make a decision, because we have the need to social license. But, then, what we all know, um, is the consultation fatigue. So, we really need to, um, be smart how we use, um, existing information. How can we use existing from information from, um, previous studies, for example, but then link it to, like, a joint fact-finding, um, yeah, kind of, uh, a program with the local communities. Or, um, when we work with company with, um, localized, uh, local, um, technicians, that then gets the ownership of the data, and work with the local stakeholders, so that everyone feels like a connection to certain information that, um, uh, in the end inform the plan. And, then, one part of that is, obviously, to think about, um, the the money that is required to engage with, um, to engage with, um, your stakeholders in the communities. That means we need to make sure that from the beginning on there's investment in, or, yeah, there's an allowance in the budget to bring, um, and build up this, um, yeah, architecture around, like, the different stakeholders, and, um, bring, um, that's de-risking from the social side. The last point I want to, um, talk about is the location. And on the ground often you can do one mistake and you lose Yeah, your audience of the stakeholders you lose the trust. So you be able to test out some of those approaches with the communities or the the locations that potentially face slightly less risk. So I want to keep it at that just to Yeah, reflect on some of the key elements and I'm looking forward to the discussion following this. I look forward to hear from the other panelists. >> Thank you so much Oliver. That was very inspiring as a start. And we will move on to the next presentation and for those of you who may have come later, we will take three relatively brief presentations and then we will continue to watch the panel discussion. So the next that I'm going to invite is Claudia Claudia Scheck Schneider from Pacific Institute and the CEO Water Mandate. And we are having your presentation right there. So Claudia, please proceed. >> Thank you very much. It's a real pleasure to be here. Thank you. I think this is a really nice move over from Oliver's introduction which was almost the theory of of this into maybe a more practical example. So I'm going to present the water resilience coalition collaborative model with a specific reference to the Rio Bravo and Rio Grande. Next slide, please. And Thank you. So just a brief background as to why I seem to be wearing multiple institutional hats. The United Nations Global Compact is a large corporate sustainability platform linked to the UN and together with the Pacific Institute, they jointly created a coalition around corporate water stewardship called the CEO Water Mandate, which is a member-based initiative. And from that, you've got the water resilience coalition that came into being in 2020. It is a CEO-led initiative to try and speed up action and initiatives in 100 priority basins in the world. And where those are and who the players are are in the next slide, please. So, there are over 40 different members that are part of the water resilience coalition and the idea is to drive water stewardship collectively in these 100 priority basins and to have these companies act as champions to go forward and act as corporate champions to cause of a collaborative or collective action initiative in a basin. Next slide, please. So, the 100 priority basins are all those that are mapped out in color here, but the ones that we're currently focusing on and that we're trying to drive collective action in are the ones that are in light blue and the Rio Grande and Rio Bravo is one of them. Next slide, please. So, the question is here, what is a collaborative versus collective action here? And that is basically the the scale that we're talking about. Often in basins like Oliver was mentioning already, there's quite a few collective action initiatives that are going on. Um but they with if you look into a broader basin, taking the Mississippi as an example, there might be a hundred collective action projects in there, but it doesn't mean that the different partners or the different initiatives know of each other and there's not necessarily any coordination among them, and they also do not function or work towards a joint target in a basin in order to achieve something greater, um, or or to maybe try and address the key challenge that there might be in the basin that would also then be linked to the, um, public sector, um, or the kind of governance goals. Um, there's also very likely no metrics associated that are joint that one could report this to. So, with the next slide, the collaborative is trying to do that. It is trying to align, and, well, first of all, it's trying to create, um, a structure, which is almost like a secretariat, um, that would create, um, the facilitation opportunity amongst these collective action initiatives in the larger basin, so that the stakeholders that are all working on collective action initiatives are mapped, and that there is an opportunity to discuss synergy, and ultimately to work towards a joint target in the overall basin, and to have joint metrics to report against, so that ultimately there is an opportunity to all report what the impact is on the basin over time. Next slide, please. So, ultimately a structure like this would firstly be funded by a champion, a private sector champion, um, which then be setting up a collaborative that would go through a set of steps, including first of all, mapping the challenges in the basin, understanding what is there, what the typical identified goals and issues in the basin are already, trying to, with stakeholders together, um, define the target, um, for the basin, and that could include water quality, water quantity, or wash issues, for example, to understand the type of scientifically rigorously thought-out projects that would be able to give you measurable results towards that target, to engage the different solutions providers that might be able to provide projects and to initiate them, and to understand the costs that might be associated with them, and to then ultimately also report progress on a publicly available platform that showcases what the different outputs are in a basin over time so that there is that it's easier to hold um initiatives to account. Next slide, please. So, one of the examples is the uh water action collaborative in the Rio Grande and Rio Bravo. Next slide. Um if you want to read a little bit more about it um on the water action hub, uh which is our public-facing platform, you can read up about this particular collaborative or also other collaboratives that are currently up and running already. Um so, um I'll provide a little pin for later for uh if you want to if a QR code if you want to go there. So, the challenge for the Rio Grande Bravo um is that it's a basin that is very um heavily used for agriculture. It's got about 10 million people in it, and it's obviously got a uh national divide between uh the upper strea- the upper um basin being in the US and the lower one being in Mexico. Um and basically, the main challenge is that water use has um is uh is far outstripping what's uh what should be uh what should be used, and um it is really hard to understand um what how to how to potentially tackle this together. Obviously, there are many different jurisdictions. There's obviously the two nations that need to uh that need to engage. There's different legal frameworks here as well. And um it's very hard to understand what to actually set a target to because there's very disjointed sets of data as well. So, the data that's been collected in the US part, for example, is very different in its metrics and the way that it is set up and its data density than in parts of Mexico where they've got some pockets of really great data collection and other areas with gaps. So, um with the next slide, please. The um So, Heineken and FEMSA are the two key champions that have started this collaborative from the Mexico side, actually, and there's currently still room to find another champion uh before the US side of the basin. Um and there is already an established project management office, and that is the main structure that is trying to bring about the the target setting, the engagement with stakeholders, the align data. Um but there's also a larger structure that um this PMO needs to respond to, uh which includes a steering committee, advisory groups, working groups, as well as a stakeholder forum, in order to ensure that there is this um open and um open communication. How these roles and functions and relationships amongst um amongst these groups or these these governance structures um happen is locally determined, depending on the relationships, and for example, might look very different in the um in um another basin. So, with the next slide, please. So, one of the key issues that is currently happening is that um the PMO has kicked off a basin integration study that involves both parties from the US and Mexico around a common cause is to try and understand the groundwater flow, the aquifer recharge levels, and to try and understand where to potentially jointly set targets around groundwater recharge and and replenishment Um and um that is um the the kind of the key challenge here is to be able to analyze and to align the data sets that there are in order to not just have tiny little pockets of great data that measure individual initiatives but to actually lift it to a level where you can get an overarching overview of what's going on in the basin and what is needed to have a common language around which to communicate. Um next slide, please. I'm going to stop here. Uh we can talk about this more in the Q&A. If you're interested in the water action hub, the QR code is here and um I've got two colleagues that are working on this full-time if there is any um requirements to connect with them. Thank you. >> Thank you for this, Claudia, taking us to another level, some other inputs, but also some more specific insights into an example from this basin. That was really interesting. Um we will now proceed to the final uh short intervention. This is from uh Maheen Malik, who is water and policy coordinator at the Water Stewardship um Alliance. So, um that's is very nice to hear hear from you who's actually really working in into water stewardship. So, over to you, Maheen. >> Thanks, Miriam. I think we've had some great example from Claudia and some very understandable uh reasons for why water stewardship can actually provide good insights into how do we translate action on a modular basis from Oliver as well. I think uh what I'm going to do is I'm going to quickly go through what water stewardship is because while we've sort of heard some good examples about uh from you know what's happening at a basin level, and we've also heard uh how water stewardship can facilitate transboundary problems, I think it's also important that we sort of reiterate what water stewardship is. So, Alliance for Water Stewardship, AWS, not Amazon Web Services, uh AWS defines water stewardship as the use of water that is socially and culturally equitable, environmentally sustainable, and economically beneficial. Now, we understand that stewardship is taking responsibility uh for something that we do not own. And considering we have water, which is a resource, it is definitely we It is definitely a resource that all of us use, but none of us own. So, the reason that we're sort of moving on these conversations from management to stewardship is because we've sort of realized that management alone is not going to help solve the crisis that is at hand, which is the climate uh and the water crisis, sort of entangled with each other. So, what water stewardship does is it sort of takes you from that fence line approach, which is just taken within a certain uh factory boundary, for instance, or a site boundary, to sort of go outside your site and understand that water needs to be addressed at a catchment level or a watershed level or a basin level. And this is something that cannot be done alone by one person, one organization, one public sector department, but it is something that has to happen continuously through a stakeholder inclusive process that involves a number of businesses, public sector, private sector, all together. If we move on to the next slide, uh we'll sort of tell you what the Alliance for Water Stewardship does. Both Oliver and Claudia, they're very um active within the AWS and the water stewardship community, and they know that uh that AWS has been convening and catalyzing water stewardship uh coordination for a number of years now. It's actually been 10 years this year. We are also a custodian of the International Water Stewardship Standard, which is known as the AWS Standard, and we've also developed a credible system for implementing that water stewardship standard as well as sort of going through the credibility by developing a platform, which is a third-party platform for certification purposes. If we move to the next slide very quickly, so the sort of members we have are from water-focused NGOs to water-aware businesses to public sector organizations to water sector experts to a number of funding members from the development sector as well who sort of come together with more than 200 members globally. If you move to the next slide, please. This is just to give you an idea. They've sort of come together to develop what water stewardship is and how can we translate that concept of water stewardship into bite-size pieces, and that has sort of come through the standard itself. Interestingly, we were just able to launch the new version of the standard, the version third of the standard, this year, and I think there was a webinar that was held to introduce that with IWA I think a couple of weeks back. Interestingly, so the new standard talks about water stewardship the same way, but interestingly, it sort of includes adaptation, climate, and resilience in a much more pronounced way because you realize that these are very important factor that needs to be taken into the conversations we're now having, and that is why I think moving from water management to water stewardship itself is an adaptive measure because we're realizing how important it is to have these things within these conversations. I'm not going to go into a lot of details about the standard itself. For those of you who are interested, can download the standard, but the idea is the standard provides a non-prescriptive way of implementing and asking those important questions as to what water stewardship is and what locally led adaptive initiatives can be taken on a catchment level. So adaptation interestingly is very much addressed within the standard, especially in the third version of the standard because the standard offers an entry point for the private sector in a rather structured method, which is something that we've realized that the public sector alone cannot take charge of addressing water or water challenges. Moreover, considering that there not one solution can fit all catchments or cannot fit all areas, it's important that we have a structured framework that can give you that direction asking those diagnostic questions, but then having those locally led solutions that are important to address the challenges that are there within that specific contest because we know that water is very much local. And the third part is that it's very important that stakeholder engagement is continuously done so that that collective action approach that Claudia was also talking about is sort of adhered to, which is sort of the main thing that also differentiates between management and stewardship. If we move to the next slide, and I think there are a number of examples that you'll be able to see through the system that we've developed and through the standard implementation for all the businesses who've been doing AWS, have been taking it up, have been implementing the standard where they've included a number of adaptation solutions which could be either nature-based solutions, risk and vulnerability assessment studies, could be supply chain resilience initiatives, collective actions in different river basins, and very importantly something that generally comes up is maximizing water efficiency, finding out alternate resources to water supply and ensuring that water is reused within our systems. So, I think all of this is very important. The transboundary element of water is something which is not directly discussed within the standard. But this is something that is also always taken into action because any business will not be just running within a certain area or any geographic state either. It will actually be running at a much more global scale for instance, especially those that are running across different boundaries. So, when they're doing or implementing water stewardship principles, they have to take into context not just their own site or within their own operations, but they have to take into context what is happening outside of that particular site, outside of their fence line, within the catchment, and they also have to take into account or at least understand how their supply chains are running and how water is used within those supply chain as well. So, I think that sort of moves outside the boundary of uh uh it's sort of moves outside the boundary not of just for instance an area, but also the transboundary element of water. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. We have some questions coming into the Q&A box and I will encourage you really to write some more. But before we we proceed to taking these, I just want to have a short panel discussion, some Q&A initially before we we move on. And actually, I would like to take us a little a little step back to your presentation, Oliver. And maybe yeah, maybe all three of you can actually put on your cameras now if possible. Oliver, you talked about about scaling um at at the local sites, the the subnational, the national, and international different sites. Uh what we see is that we have a lot of the same barriers. Yes, exactly this one. We have many of the same barriers, but also so different. How how can when you're looking at what is stewardship how can that act as an as a mediator to make sure that we link better between the different elements, the different scales? >> Yeah, um so I guess here is where standards like the the AWS standard, but also initiatives like through the CEO Water Mandate play a very crucial role because you have so many different stakeholders active across different levels. And usually obviously when you work as a practitioner, you maybe work with a development bank, or you work with like a local community, or you work with a company. So you always get interacted in different like yeah, the different scales of those different yeah, of those different challenges. And I guess and that's where I also I think there's like a project or program management approach you can take on that because you you have like those huge visions, you have the very large scale. And I think as the practitioner, you have to keep that in mind because you can help like a localized smaller project with the context of the the larger like the the basin on the for example also on an international level. And you can help whoever you kind of support to to align the projects that are going forward with those different visions around. I mean, it's never that easy obviously, but sometimes you have to step back and think about how you can break it down into smaller work packages, and I think that's exactly where it comes down to where you can modularize your approach, and that's also how the standard is kind of working. So, you start out with your what is due to your journey, but then over time you can reiterate and you can further progress, and that makes it kind of applicable at all the different scales because you cannot solve everything at once. You also know that, for example, in a particular project you can't um yeah, you cannot address everything, but if you aware of what the the larger vision for that region is, you can kind of in check that particular element into something else, and that helps to either make bigger programs bankable or your own project, obviously, sellable with your company, if that's what you're doing because you always have to convince them the stakeholders that either provide yeah, resources, not just money, but also the the workforce and so on to the project. You want to have them to to support you and bring their own ownership into that. You're mute. You're mute, Miriam. >> Mute, sorry. So, we need the the visions for the large scale, but we also need to find ways to to act and make things happen at at the other levels. There was another question with your presentation, Oliver. You talk about when you have the large scale, you you are making 15-20 year cycles, international agreements on on these large kind of time time frameworks. But when you looking at the the water management problems that we're facing right now, the need to move towards implementation of SDGs, we don't have a lot of time time to that. We we really need to speed up. Do you think that this approach is faster, can help us move faster? Or or not in a way because I also see that it involves a lot of discussion and stakeholder integration, which very often takes a lot of time. >> Yes, I I think it takes a lot of time, but then um, I guess well, it's like probably more corporate speak, but you always um, yeah, try to be or you need to be more risk-taking and in order um, to do that, you need to think in lots of like the budget cycles of different organizations. So, if you can um, uh, come up with a a group of projects um, that would have like the proper impact on the ground and um, provide uh, um, I guess um, those quick wins that I that I was talking about. Um, like for example, if you I mean, wetland restoration, maybe you can like it's maybe multi-year process, but you can break it uh, further down um, into the different elements. So, I mean, I think it needs a good element of project management. Um, the stakeholders still um, are required. Um, I guess you need some sort of discipline because that's always the problem is the project management and uh, the stakeholder engagement that often take much more um, time and resources um, to go forward and I guess we're all struggling um, with the same elements, but um, because there's there's so much knowledge outside that we can use that alone already helps us to kind of um, speed up some of the process and it links a little bit to the discussion. We have examples in places for where things are working. So, we can potentially use them. I mean, you still have to adapt them again obviously, but um, you know how things can work out and if that kind of gives you a little bit more of a guidance what you can work towards. They will not always work. Um, obviously, it's not a cookie-cutter approach, um, but there there's an evidence-based that you can use in order to also push um, like well, once a certain project is kind of being um, approved to go forward because you can showcase things have worked and then you have to build in, I guess, more adaptable projects um, execution more, so you have a the whole bunch where you can actually change your plan. You don't just follow through the plan because the plan is there, but you need to be able to adapt it accordingly and obviously it's not necessary always the mindset that we have as human beings. We like it when it's said, so I I think it's for everyone to challenge yourself to to to change things because yeah, it's comfortable to to move along, but then suddenly it's a year later and you run out of budget, but things haven't changed. So, yeah, it's a very tricky question, but I I guess that's essentially what I've come across to and I think it's like a big transformational mindset challenge as well that we have to work in. So, it's not just the solution on the ground, but also the way we think and approach things. >> Yeah, thank you. Moving on, maybe a little bit also from this perspective speeding up. Claudia, you you have this business perspective also in your organization and and some really practical experience from a lot of different projects. Do you see that maybe also introduction of the business perspective will that also enable us to speed up action and overcome some of the also political barriers for improved water stewardship? >> Potentially there is room for it, although I mean, ultimately you always need to work within the bounds of of the governance framework, provided the framework is is fully functional. Sometimes it is not entirely and then it is almost a gap that maybe some of the collective action can fill in its stead. So, maybe from the example that I provided, this interim study that was being being set up for this this kind of understanding where the groundwater alignment goes is that um one of the stakeholders engaged is most definitely the International Boundary and Water Commission between Mexico and and and the US. But, because of the growing tensions at the moment between the two countries, it is sometimes very hard to move forward on a policy advocacy level. So, that is why that basin integration study was was prompted as a more practical pragmatic action that focuses on data rather than the governance issues around it saying, "Okay, what can we actively actually go and look towards and work towards that could give us a scientific or data-centered way forward. And I think ultimately there is an opportunity to to feed the outcomes of the study also back into that stakeholder or or kind of integrated basin discussion and and feed it back and literally enrich some of the data availability around which governance decisions can also be taken. So, yes, in a way that can speed up the process especially if there's maybe some stagnation more on the governance front. >> Mhm. And with the kind of tension that you mentioned between the two countries, do you see that improving cooperation on the shared river basins, could that potentially also ease some of the challenges because you you can find some common ground where you actually need to cooperate? >> Yeah, I think that's definitely that that opportunity and I think that's under exploration here through this integration study and I think it's a space to be watched. It's not a space that's already resolved. >> Yeah, no, it's it's not easy, definitely. Yeah, Maheen. Getting more into some of the the kind of benefits from working with water stewardship. I I would also just like to ask you before I proceed on that. What do you see what do you experience as a as the most difficult barriers to overcome in order to kind of get people more into understanding and working on water stewardship? >> I think one of the barriers that we've sort of realized, especially coming from those who implemented the system and are implementing the principles, is stakeholder engagement. And stakeholder engagement is something that I think I also heard Oliver talk about whenever we include people in a system, obviously there's no definitive answer. But getting getting a consensus around or for instance being transparent, especially by businesses or for instance having that conversations that are necessary between the public and the private sector is something which sort of creates that sort of barrier. So I think stakeholder engagement is one factor that I've sort of learned through number of implementation cycles that it is something which is a is a is a is a continuous process. It's not something that's done and dusted in a day. But I think that is where you have an opportunity to also improve relations because the private sector generally is also there's also a trust deficit with the private sector between the public and the private sector. So if we have systems like these in place, I think these could be improved, but this won't happen overnight. This would obviously take a lot longer. But there is definitely opportunity in it. >> I think I have experienced in in many occasions that people in in general of course for very positive towards stakeholder engagement, but when it comes to the point where politicians also have to give up some of their mandate, some of their political decision power, then it becomes quite a lot more difficult. >> Consensus is always difficult, let it be at a political level or at a household level. I think it's the human nature sort of remains the same. >> And actually, now we will proceed to taking questions. I think I I would like to take this one from Chris Fenmore. How is your organization, and I think we can put it to all three of you, addressing the challenge of reducing the water sector's carbon footprint while maintaining financial sustainability and affordability? In particular, which strategies or technologies have demonstrated the greatest potential to achieve meaningful greenhouse gas reductions without imposing unsustainable costs on utilities or consumers? We have been talking more I have had a climate adaptation around this, but of course it's also reduction of greenhouse gases are very important. Yeah, does one of you have a reply to this, Maheen? >> Yeah, I think that's a very pertinent question. We usually whenever we talk about water as a solution, we tend to present more of it as an adaptation solution. And that's something that we're not just exploring with the water stewardship concept because that's still a niche, but we're sort of exploring how water can actually be a significant adaptive solution within the climate sense as well. But interestingly, this is still a conversation whether it is useful for any organization to take those steps and sort of facilitate the water utility water reuse side or the or use water as a mitigation. So I think depending on the crisis that's at hand and that local context, it's very important to then realize how do we want to use water either within an adaptive sense or we use water as a mitigation. But, it is uh I'd say it's a cost-benefit analysis that has to be done. So, solution has to be tailor-made. It has to be contextual. And if for instance, an organization is struggling with both carbon and water, then that is definitely a a question that is going to be difficult for them to answer which solution to take. But, at the moment, I wouldn't say we directly have a system which sort of addresses uh water mitigation. And I think we have to be honest. This is a conversation that is now taking place. But, if we say that yes, the water stewardship principle directly involves mitigation as an answer, I would say not at the moment. >> Okay. Um that's that's an interesting topic to continue working on uh as you say. I think also because when you are looking at adaptation measures, it I mean, there's a variety of of elements that you can do. Looking at nature-based solutions uh to a larger extent, they tend to have a lower climate impact. Um so, finding the solutions where you don't have to make a trade-off, but actually have to you you can do maybe both in some of the solutions that you're choosing. Um Oliver and Claudia, if you have answers to this also, then then just please raise your hands or yeah, start speaking. Yeah, Oliver. >> Yeah, maybe um just a short one. I mean, it also like so, I'm more coming from I guess being being a consultant and a service provider. So, it's I guess also in my um I guess in my like way how I approach a project, um trying to find options that can be for example proposed um that would uh have like a, um, yeah, carbon reduction benefit, then obviously you would have to align it with kind of the the different investment cycles that you want to take on because it might be not uh, the right solution at this point in time, they might be the right, um, solution after, I don't know, for example, the next 5-year planning cycle, but it's important to have that on your, I guess, your adaptive, um, like an adaptive kind of planning, uh, way that you can consider those, uh, options when they come along, so you don't start, um, like I I guess, um, um, uh, from scratch, but there there many technologies around, um, but then obviously, uh, having early awareness, uh, of them makes life much easier than in the in the short term when the decision, the financial decision, um, has to be made, and then obviously it often coincides with, um, yeah, also public funding that might be available, or, um, I guess there's a a big push in the climate finance, uh, system as well, where there's a mandate to provide low-carbon, um, solutions. So, like if you propose basically like a no low-carbon solution, um, you it will be rejected, um, as a potential funded project. So, I guess there's different mechanisms that come both, uh, like from the public sector, um, but also then obviously how the organization decides on that. >> Right, thanks. And we have two very a bit more specific questions regarding the AWS standards. Uh, one is on how challenging it is for manufacturing units, uh, in developing countries like industries, uh, textile industries, to fully align with the standards, and what are the primary steps to overcome these implementation barriers. That that's one question, and we have the next question from Francesco Piccioli, uh, that relates a bit also to how can it translate the AWS, how can it translate, uh, into a water utility context, uh, as the case studies involve industrial uses and large corporates. Um so, what are the examples on how this can be implemented in a utility context? Um yeah, we're running out of time. Maybe he maybe you can refer to some cases or give a quick answer. >> Yeah. So, I'll be very short, but for instance, if you have any more questions, just look us up online or just look it up as LinkedIn and you can find us and we can answer those questions directly through email as well. But very quickly, uh textiles is definitely a much more difficult sector to implement the standard in because there are a number of other standards that are already there within the textile sector. But obviously, you can use this particular standard to help you move your grading within others standards that are present within the textile. And especially, I'd say for those who are implementing Higg Index, which is one standard or system within the textile sector, or the ZDHC, which is for chemicals, they for instance have seen that by implementing the AWS standard, they've seen a better score that they could sort of achieve within these two particular systems. So, there's obviously benefits, but again, the challenge comes with the cost, with the holistic approach of water stewardship in general, and especially when they have to collect data as well. So, while stakeholder management was one barrier that sort of come again and again, collecting data outside of your site is also very difficult because a it needs engagement, continuous engagement, and finding data which is reliable, which you can use, or for instance, and if other stakeholders are willing to share that particular data is something which is also difficult. Especially in developing countries where there are SMEs who are part of a global supply chain. Because textile sector works differently from food and beverage. And the second question I will probably prefer it to answer later in the interest of time because there is a longer uh that's a longer conversation. I'd be honest, it's a it's a technical question. But please uh Francesca, if you do, I can put in my email address and you can write directly to me or we can collect it through IWM. Thanks, Maheen. >> I think that that seems to be a good solution to this. And then we have one final question. Um as long as a company like Heineken is on the steering committee, is is that a problem to have them taking part in the decision-making? And I'm not really sure if this is related to you, Maheen, or to you, Claudia. You probably know yourself if this is a problem. Was that for you to answer, Claudia? >> Yeah, I I think it's a question that that very clearly typifies also that lack of trust um that is often between the the public and the private sector. Um and um I think I've already uh written one response, but the the point is that Heineken by funding or they're called a champion, it means that they are a funder um to enable that secretariat structure of that PMO. And um basically are then have a spot on the steering committee to be able to with others, obviously, to be able to then um what what watch the the progress of of the the whole collaborative structure. Um it is potentially potentially it's understandable that there's a potentially a distrust issue saying there's often vested interests, um but very often the water stewardship community, when it comes to to corporate risk and water risk, is it's quite clearly understood now that if a corporate does not do its share in a basin, it's going to run into this clear risk of being able to operate there at all. So, it is an operational survival um being by by being part of these collaboratives, and it's also the other contribution that they might be doing is also a lot of data sharing because because of the their requirements on environmental social and and governance kind of reporting, there's a lot of data that a company like that would be collecting that they could also be sharing, for example, to the benefit of a basin and finding better solutions. So, yeah, there there's there's several sides to the coin, and it is actually a typical barrier that often gets discussed. And last week, it was discussed at the Alliance for Water Stewardship as well. It's the governance issue of being able to to bring the two parties together. It's It is um what one of the most discussed topics at the moment. >> Thanks for a very honest answer, actually. But it I I mean, if from my perspective, it also highlights why we need to talk and why we also need to hold some of these large companies responsible. And I mean, these are some of the places where we can do that. So, I think it's yeah. Time is actually running, and I had I had prepared a lot more questions, and then we have a few more from the debate, but we don't really have more time. I would have loved to have a discussion about ESG reporting and reporting frameworks, and and there's also a discussion a question about that. We'll find some other time to to do that. For now, I will just thank Ram for putting this together, being very active in doing so, Maheen Malik, Oliver Manican, and Claudia Sacherer for participating and contributing. And at least some of us will meet at the IWA World Water Congress and Exhibition in Glasgow in in October. Um if you're a member of IWA, you can also join the specialist group on sustainability in water management. Um and uh yeah, there are plenty of more opportunities to discuss further and we will definitely do that. But for now, uh I just want to say thank you for the good questions, the debate, and for joining our webinar here today. >> Uh thank you, Miriam, and thank you to all the speakers. Uh for the participants who are interested in IWA's upcoming webinars, we have one uh scheduled on 9th July, which is about artificial intelligence in urban water systems. You can check out the link below and uh you know, register yourself. Next slide. Uh then we have a very exciting webinar for all the young water professionals, uh you know, making your mark early, building influence and career pathways, and you can check out the link below. And for all the utilities, we have applications open for the climate smart utilities program. So, we would request you to submit your entries and win uh awards uh in our Glasgow conference, and you can check out the link below. And then last but not the least, as Miriam mentioned, uh the IWA World Water Congress and Exhibition is being held in Glasgow this year in October, and we would like like to request everyone to attend and you know, get more details in the link below. And uh all those interested in the digital water and AI space, we have a digital water summit uh to be held in November in Istanbul. And for all those uh non-members of IWA, we uh we are uh you know, providing exciting discount of 20%, so you can use the QR code here and use a discount code to become IWA members. Uh thank you again to all the organizers and the speakers for your time, and also special uh thanks to the participants to being thanks to the participants to being very active and we will meet you soon. Thank you everyone.