WP 10 Comparative policy analysis Universidade Atlântica - Portugal UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005 Comparative Analysis Report: Main Topics Water renewable and withdrawal (trends) Socioeconomic indicators and water resources Population and water scarcity Water scarcity and sustainable development Comparative water policies Socioeconomic Dimensions and Water Resources Water in SMART case studies Water and Socioeconomic Aspects Water availability imbalances Water Uses Population and Water Scarcity Trends in Water renewable and withdrawal Water Use in agriculture Water use for domestic purposes Water use for industry Water Scarcity and Sustainable Development Comparative Water Policy Dymensions UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

National Water Indicators Water Policies Analysis UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Comparative Complex Water Resources Indicators: National Level UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

HDI – Human development Index WPI – Water Poverty Index Comparative Water Resources Indicators HDI – Human development Index WPI – Water Poverty Index Resources Index Access to safe drinking water Index Capacity Index Use of Water Index Environmental Index WSI - Water Stress Index SWSI - Social Water Stress Index UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Human Development Index Comparative Water Resources Indicators Human Development Index Components of HDI life expectancy educational attainment income The HDI sets shows where each country stands in relation to these scales – expressed as a value between 0 and 1 The scores for the three dimensions are then averaged in an overall index It is here taken as the best available approach to the adaptive capacity of a society facing scarcity of water The HDI facilitates the determination of priorities for policy intervention and the evaluation of progress over time UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005 Source: UN Human Development Report

Human Development Index Comparative Water Resources Indicators Human Development Index UN World Development Report UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Human Development Index - 2000 Comparative Water Resources Indicators Human Development Index - 2000 Egypt 0.635 Jordan 0.714 Lebanon 0.758 Tunisia Turkey 0.735 UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005 Source: World Development Report (UNDP), 2000

Comparative Water Resources Indicators Water Poverty Index (Lawrence, et al 2002) Combining water scarcity issues and socio-economic aspects 5 aspects considered: Resources, Access, Use, Capacity and Environment The idea of WPI is to combine measures of water availability and access with measures of people’s capacity to access water Water Availability Index Meigh et al. (1999) took in their GWAVA (Global Water AVailability Assessment) model the temporal variability of water availability into account. The index includes surface water as well as groundwater resources, and compares the total amount to the demands of all sectors, i.e. domestic, industrial and agricultural demands. The month with the maximum deficit or minimum surplus respectively is decisive. The index is normalised to the range –1 to +1. When the index is zero, availability and demands are equal. Environmental Sustainability Index Index of water scarcity - An indicator that combines information about water abstractions and water availability is the index of water scarcity. It is defined by the intensity of use of water resources, i.e. the gross freshwater abstractions as percentage of the total renewable water resources or as percentage of internal water resources. Human Needs Index Recently, the Water Poverty Index (WPI) (Sullivan, 2002, Lawrence et al., 2002), developed by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) in Wallingford, has been intensively discussed. This index tries to show the connection between water scarcity issues and socio-economic aspects. It ranks countries according to the provision of water, combining five components which are: Resources Access Use Capacity and Environment Each of these components is derived from two to five indicators which are normalised to a scale from 0 to 1. In case of an equal weighting, the subindex and component values are then calculated as a simple average of the corresponding indicators, and this value is multiplied by 20. The overall index is generated as a sum of the component values so that the value is between 0 and 100. A value of 100 is only possible if a country ranks best in all of the five components. Ex: People can be ‘water poor’ in the sense of not having sufficient water for their basic needs because it is not available People can also be “water poor” because they are “income poor”; although water is available UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Comparative Water Resources Indicators Water Poverty Index UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Comparative Water Resources Indicators Water Poverty Index - Conceptual Framework The basic calculation, of a 5 components, is based on the following formula: x i – x min / x max – x min where xi , xmax and xmin are the original values for country i, the highest value country, and the lowest value country respectively. The indices therefore show a country’s relative position and for any one indicator this lies between 0 and 1. Within each of the five components, sub-component indices are 5 averaged to get the component index. Each of the five component indices is multiplied by 20 and then added together to get the final index score for the WPI, which is in the range 0 to 100. The conceptual framework for the index can be illustrated in the four quadrant diagram in Figure 1. Quadrant A indicates a country or community which scores relatively highly on capacity and use, but has a low score on availability and access. Quadrant B shows relatively high scores on both sets of factors. Quadrant C indicates both water and income poverty, while quadrant D covers relatively low capacity and use but high availability and access1. However, this is not a complete description of the framework because the fifth factor, environment, should also be included, but has been omitted here for presentational simplicity. Water Poverty Index [Resources] + [Access]+ [Use] + [Capacity] + [Environment] UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

National Values for the Water Poverty Index Comparative Water Resources Indicators National Values for the Water Poverty Index 71. Egypt 78. Turkey 86. Lebanon The resulting Water Poverty Index is presented in rank score order with the highest scoring country first (see Figure 2 and Appendix 1). The results show few surprises. Of the 147 countries with relatively complete data, most of the countries in the top half are either developed or richer developing. There are a few notable exceptions: Guyana scores highly on resources, access and use to get into fifth position, while Belgium is 56th in the list, having scored low on resources and on environment. The US and New Zealand, though they score relatively highly on Environment score very low on use. South Africa, low on the resources index, is relatively high on the other sub-indices reflecting its progressive policies on access and management. The index as presented does suggest areas of current future policy concentration with the overall performance. Data are also provided in Appendix 1 on the Falkenmark index measure: that is, water resources per capita per year. The correlation between the Falkenmark index of water stress and our Water Poverty Index is only 0.35 which suggests that the WPI does add to the information available in assessing progress towards sustainable water provision7. Table 2 below shows the correlation matrix for the five indices and the WPI. There is very little correlation between the different sub-indices, with the exception of access and capacity. Although intuitively, a strong association between these two indicators is to be expected, we might have expected a stronger negative correlation between resources and use (the more scarce the resources, the better use is made of them), and a negative association between resources and environment (the more scarce the resources, the more attention is paid to conservation generally). 107. Tunisia 118. Jordan UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

5 components (with ranks) Comparative Water Resources Indicators Water Poverty Index 5 components (with ranks)   Resources Rank Access Capacity Use Environment Egypt 3.4 136 18.3 34 13.3 86 12.5 127 10.5 101 Jordan 0.4 144 13 82 14.9 63 10.8 97 7.3 143 Lebanon 6.1 117 15.7 56 15.8 45 88 7.7 140 Tunisia 3.2 137 12.4 85 15.3 55 12.2 123 7.8 Turkey 87 14.8 62 13.1 91 10.7 93 10.1 110 UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005 Water Poverty Index Resources Index - 2000 This index combines two separate indices: one of internal water resources and the second of external water inflows. Both are calculated on a log scale to reduce the distortion caused by high values, and expressed on a per capita basis. External water inflow amounts are reduced by 50%; this is an arbitrary factor, but it is an attempt to give reduced weight to external water inflows because these resources are less secure than those generated internally within a country. The resources index is a basic indicator of water availability. A significant additional factor that affects availability is the reliability or variability of the resource; it should be included because the more variable the resource, the smaller is the proportion of the total resource that can actually be used. However, we were unable to find an indicator of variability that is available at the national scale, and this factor had to be omitted. Finally, water quality is also an important factor influencing the availability of the resource. Data on this were found, but have been included under the environment component (see below). To avoid duplication, it was not also considered as part of the resources component. UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005 Sources: World Resources Institute, 2000; Gleick, 2000

UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005 Water Poverty Index Access to Water - 2000 There are three components to this index: • percentage of the population with access to safe water • percentage of the population with access to sanitation • an index which relates irrigated land, as a proportion of arable land, to internal water resources. This is calculated by taking the percentage of irrigated land relative to the internal water resource index and then calculating the index of the result. The idea behind this method of calculation is that countries with a high proportion of irrigated land relative to low internal available water resources are rated more highly than countries with a high proportion of irrigated land relatively to high available internal water resources. This index tries to take into account basic water and sanitation needs for relatively poor agriculturally-based countries, recognising that water availability for growing food is as important as for domestic and human consumption. UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005 Sources: World Resources Institute, 2000; and HDR 2000

UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005 Water Poverty Index Capacity – 2000/01 There are four components to this index. • Log GDP per capita (PPP) (US$). This is the average income per head of population adjusted for the purchasing power of the currency. This is considered to be a much more accurate measure of the average standard of living across countries. These data are presented in log form in order to reduce the impact of very high values. under-5 mortality rate (per 1000 live births). This is a well-established health indicator, and it is one that is closely related to access to clean water. • UNDP education index from the Human Development Report 2001. • the Gini coefficient. This is a well known measure of inequality based on the Lorenz curve which gives the distribution of income across the population.3 Where the Gini coefficient is not reported, the Capacity index is based only on the first three sub-indices. This index tries to capture those socio-economic variables which can impact on access to water or are a reflection of water access and quality. Introducing the Gini coefficient here is an attempt to adjust capacity to enjoy access to clean water by a measure of the unequal distribution of income. Sources: GDP - HDR 2001; Under-5 mortality - World Resources Institute, 2000; Education - HDR 2001 UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005 Water Poverty Index Use – 2000/01 This index has three components: • domestic water use per capita (m3/cap/yr). This index takes 50 litres per person per day as a reasonable target for developing countries.4 We then construct a two-way index such that countries at 50 litres = 1. Countries below the minimum have an index calculated such that the lower the value the more they are below the minimum. Countries above the minimum have a lower value on the index the higher they are above 50 litres.5 This gives some measure of ‘excessive’ use. • industrial water use per capita (m3/cap/yr). Here the proportion of GDP derived from industry is divided by the proportion of water used by industry. The index is derived in the usual way: the higher the ratio of industrial value added share to industrial water use share, the higher the score on the index. This gives a crude measure of water use efficiency. • agricultural water use per capita (m3/cap/yr). The index is calculated in the same way as for industrial water use. UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005 Sources: Gleick, 2000; World Resources Institute, 2000; World Bank, 2001

UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005 Water Poverty Index Environment - 2001 This index tries to capture a number of environmental indicators which reflect on water provision and management and which are included in the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) (World Economic Forum et al, 2001). These indicators not only cover water quality and ‘stress’, but also the degree to which water and the environment generally, and related information, are given importance in a country’s strategic and regulatory framework. This index is calculated on the basis of an average of five component indices. These are: • an index of water quality based on measures of • dissolved oxygen concentration, • phosphorus concentration, • suspended solids • electrical conductivity; • an index of water stress6 based on indices of • fertilizer consumption per hectare of arable land, • pesticide use per hectare of crop land, • industrial organic pollutants per available fresh water • the percentage of country's territory under severe water stress (again the ESI’s terminology) • an index of regulation and management capacity based on measures of • environmental regulatory stringency, • environmental regulatory innovation, • percent of land area under protected status • the number of sectoral EIA guidelines; • an index of informational capacity based on measures of availability of sustainable development information at the national level, environmental strategies and action plans, and the percentage of ESI variables missing from public global data sets; • an index of biodiversity based on the percentage of threatened mammals and birds. • Table 1 provides a summary of the structure of the index and the data used to build it. UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005 Sources: World Economic Forum, Yale Centre for Environmental Law and Policy, 2001

Comparative Water Resources Indicators Water Poverty Index – 2000/01 Egypt 58 Jordan 46.3 Lebanon 55.8 Tunisia 50.9 Turkey 56.5 UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Water Stress Index (Falkenmark) Comparative Water Resources Indicators Water Stress Index (Falkenmark) Water availability per person, calculated as an average according both temporal and spatial scale and thereby omits water shortages in dry seasons or in certain regions within special characteristics It is the number of hundreds of people who has to share 1 000 000 m³ annually available renewable water UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Water Stress Index (Falkenmark, 1989) Comparative Water Resources Indicators Water Stress Index (Falkenmark, 1989) Originally, the indicator based on the estimation that a flow unit of 1,000,000 m³ of water can support 2,000 people in a society with a high level of development. Water availability of more than 1,700m³/capita/year is defined as the threshold above which water shortage occurs only irregularly or locally. Below this level, water scarcity arises in different levels of severity. It does not take the water quality into account at all or does it give information about a country’s ability to use the resources. Even if a country has sufficient water according to the WSI, these water resources possibly cannot be used because of pollution or insufficient access to them. UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Comparative Water Resources Indicators Water Stress Index - 2000 Egypt 11 Jordan 31 Lebanon 5 Tunisia 23 Turkey 3 Unit - Hundreds of persons per flow unit. (One flow unit is one million m³ of renewable water) Sources: World Resources Institute, 2000; and HDR 2000; World Development Report (UNDP), 2000 UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Social Water Stress Index (Ohlsson, Leif 1999) Comparative Water Resources Indicators Social Water Stress Index (Ohlsson, Leif 1999) Social Water Stress Index represents a society’s social adaptive capacity in facing the challenges of physical water scarcity Dividing the Water Stress Index by the Human Development Index for each country A higher value indicates a greater degree of social water stress UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Social Water Stress Index Comparative Water Resources Indicators Social Water Stress Index Egypt 17 Jordan 43 Lebanon 8 Tunisia 31 Turkey 4 Unit - hundreds of persons per flow unit; divided by HDI Sources: World Resources Institute, 2000; and HDR 2000; World Development Report (UNDP), 2000 UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Correlation Matrix - world countries Comparative Water Resources Indicators Correlation Matrix - world countries   Resources Access Capacity Use Environment HDI WPI WSI SWSI 0,054 -0,057 0,822 -0,012 -0,056 -0,110 0,276 0,271 0,280 -0,276 0,029 0,868 0,941 -0,119 0,467 0,456 0,853 0,767 0,122 0,809 0,584 0,145 0,109 -0,038 0,055 0,108 0,345 0,628 0,073 0,014 -0,026 0,027 0,016 0,291 0,974 UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Correlation Matrix - SMART countries Comparative Water Resources Indicators Correlation Matrix - SMART countries   Resources Access Capacity Use Environment HDI WPI WSI SWSI 0,304 -0,284 -0,497 -0,341 0,252 -0,246 0,463 0,717 -0,922 0,360 0,420 -0,543 0,544 -0,821 -0,566 0,753 0,817 -0,494 0,167 0,776 -0,214 -0,930 -0,628 0,366 0,215 -0,606 -0,171 -0,917 -0,949 -0,584 0,361 0,228 -0,594 -0,205 -0,903 0,998 UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Water Policies Analysis UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005 Comparative Analysis Objectives To compare water policies and practices between five countries (case studies) Typifying each case study departing from a common list of indicators Compare the policies adopted by each case study region with EU-WFD Description of the main causes and effects of water scarcity UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Key Institutional Framework Water Policies Analysis Key Institutional Framework Egypt: There is a shortage of institutional capabilities for monitoring and land use changes. The main characteristics of water regulations are set by Law 4/1994. This law deals with marine pollution in general and land based sources which require treatment before disposal. It sets limits on possible discharge in the marine environment. Lebanon: In general, water related legislation is out of date. Legislation concerned with land use and specific sectoral water management is lacking, as are laws concerned with the preservation and protection of natural resources and pollution control. Institutional capabilities for monitoring and implementing laws are poor. Recently a reorganisation of water management has lead to the fusion of 21 institutions into 4 main bodies responsible for drinking water, irrigation and waste water treatment. Along with this institutional reform, a French company has been employed to fill management gaps with personnel and know-how for the next four years The new re-organisation should lead to better control of water prices, quality & allocation. UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Key Institutional Framework Water Policies Analysis Key Institutional Framework Jordan: The establishment of the Aqaba Special Economic Zone Authority will probably increase tourist activity and therefore water demand. No more data available about water legal framework Tunisia: Since the beginning of the 60’s, a vast program to access alternative water sources, or non conventional water, has been applied. No more data available about water legal framework Turkey : There are serious institutional, legal, social and economic drawbacks, which enhance water allocation and environmental pollution problems. There are constraints to achieving basin management objectives. Institutional evolution is slow in comparison to rapid evolution in water management problems. Legislation used in current management practices is too old and can not meet current demands. UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Water Policies Analysis Water Price Egypt: Legislation doesn’t establish water price for irrigation as yet Lebanon: Legislation that regulates water prices is out of date Jordan: The main legislation on water price was established in 1997 and updated in 2003, the price of water is regulated for all uses UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Water Policies Analysis Water Price Tunisia: Water cost is calculated by consumption ranges. This system is implemented Nationally. Water cost is proportional to the specific use and the different set quantities used every term. Unique prices are set for tourism and agriculture. Turkey: There is no specific regulation to determine the price of surface water or groundwater. If consumers use water for irrigation from the water distribution systems installed by government, they pay for water considering the cost of the maintenance and operation of the system. Domestic and industrial water prices are determined by local municipalities if the consumers use the public water distribution systems. Water cost is calculated by consumption brackets: 0 - 20 m3 = 0.089 €/m3 / term; 21 - 40 m3 = 0.136€/ m3 / term; 41 – 70 m3 = 0.273€/ m3 / term; 71 - 150 m3 = 0.414€/ m3 / term; 150 m3 = 0.506 €/ m3 / term. This system is implemented Nationally. Water cost is proportional to the specific use and the different set quantities used every term. Unique prices are set for tourism (0.506€/ m3) and agriculture (0.041€/ m3). UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Water Rights and Water Allocation Water Policies Analysis Water Rights and Water Allocation Egypt: Traditional water rights for irrigation are ensured by law. Lebanon: Legislation affecting water rights does not take a global or environmental approach. Jordan: There is a lack of legislation concerning water rights. Domestic use is given priority to followed by tourism and industry. The remaining water is allocated to agriculture. UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Water Rights and Water Allocation Water Policies Analysis Water Rights and Water Allocation Tunisia: There are no groups that are given priority. Water demand is satisfied in every case. Turkey: The law that governs surface water use rights in Turkey foresees that water is a public good which everyone is entitled to use, subject to the rights of prior users. There is no registration system for surface water rights or water use. Each landowner has the right to use groundwater on the condition that it is used for meeting personal needs and after getting permission from DSI. UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Water Policies Analysis Water Quality Egypt: In general, legislation for water quality is weak. There are requirements for the treatment of land based pollution sources before disposal and limits on possible discharge in the marine environment. Lebanon: Quality standards and controls are lacking as part of an integrated overall watershed approach. Jordan: Existing regulation about water quality is very restricted Tunisia: Work in progress to identify water quality standards Turkey: There is a surplus of regulations concerning water quality UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Water Policies Analysis Comparative Analysis Problems related to international comparative analysis differences in implementation policies goal differences differences in steering systems At the theoretical point of view, the international scale of analysis is more difficult to obtain the optimal preconditions for comparative analysis optimal preconditions for comparative analysis, and for the formation of the required indicators and criteria, occur when the objects of evaluation are as similar as possible. This situation is impossible to consider when we work at international level of comparative analysis UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005

Detailed task WP 10 - Comparative Policy Analysis 4 2005 Jan Feb Mar Task Name % Comp Nº Months 2005 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun National Water Indicators: Comparative Analysis 4 Completing the Analysis 90% 2 Writing the Report 20% Water Policies Analysis Data inputs (Improvement) 75% Compiled and format WP10 deliverable (Report) 0% optimal preconditions for comparative analysis, and for the formation of the required indicators and criteria, occur when the objects of evaluation are as similar as possible. This situation is impossible to consider when we work at international level of comparative analysis UATLA - SMART Workshop Grenoble January 2005